Preamble

The House met at half-past Eleven o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND INDUSTRY

The Secretary of State was asked—

Innovation

1. Mr. Andrew Love: What steps he is taking to raise the level of innovation in the United Kingdom's industrial base. [139531]

The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry(Mr. Stephen Byers): The Government believe that innovation is the key to industrial success. By providing economic stability, the Government are giving business the opportunity to raise its levels of innovation.

Mr. Love: My right hon. Friend may be aware that, tomorrow, my local business innovation centre will be presenting the annual London innovation awards. On show will be 126 new technologies, many of which can be turned into commercial ventures. Last year's winner has already established a turnover of £600,000 and is poised for major expansion. Will my right hon. Friend give us some tangible examples of innovation making the difference to both jobs and investment in the British economy?

Mr. Byers: I congratulate those who will be receiving awards at the London innovation awards ceremony tomorrow. There are several good examples of innovation that has been developed here in the United Kingdom, which have been beneficial to employment and have had wider benefits. One immediately thinks of Viagra, which has been useful to a number of people in the UK—[Interruption.] I have not had to use it myself. One thinks also of the Dyson vacuum cleaner, the Psion organiser and something that came directly from a Department of Trade and Industry grant—a smart award—to the production company responsible for "Walking with Dinosaurs", some of whom are on the Opposition Benches. That was a very good money-earner for the UK, and based on a grant that the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) would abolish.

Mr. David Heath: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that many long-term technology programmes are dependent either directly or indirectly on Government contracts? That is particularly so in defence-related industries. Does the right hon.

Gentleman also agree that one factor that should be taken into account when deciding on defence procurement contracts is the ability to sustain the technological research and development base in the UK rather than among American competitors?

Mr. Byers: I have no doubt that public procurement can be a very effective way of developing innovation and supporting research and development in the UK. Over the years, the defence sector has played a valuable role in achieving that. I know that the Ministry of Defence continues to keep under review its procedures to ensure that the decisions that it takes on its procurement programme will not weaken but support the UK's industrial base, while at the same time providing our armed forces with the quality of equipment that they need to discharge their responsibilities.

Gillian Merron: I welcome the commitment to promote innovation in British industry, but how will my right hon. Friend ensure that it will be relevant to the needs of engineering companies such as Alstom Power in Lincoln, which faces hefty competition on the world market?

Mr. Byers: I compliment my hon. Friend on her very active work with Alstom, which I know is a major employer in her constituency and plays an important role in the UK's manufacturing and engineering base. Alstom is one of the forward-looking companies that has been prepared over the years to innovate. That is one reason why it has been successful in a highly competitive international market.
The role of the Government in such circumstances is not to try to tell companies such as Alstom how it should innovate or develop products for the future. We should offer incentives and try to work alongside such companies. That is why I hope that the Chancellor will consider the extent to which R and D tax credits—he announced this in the pre-Budget report—can be extended beyond the small and medium sector, to support larger employers and companies such as Alstom in my hon. Friend's constituency.

Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: This week, the Confederation of British Industry estimated that the additional burden on British industry over this Parliament totals £32 billion. How does the Secretary of State think that helps competitiveness and innovation? Instead of inflating his Department—by 1,000 civil servants since the election—and fiddling around with a lot of gimmicky initiatives, will he at last start to stand up to the Treasury for the real interests of British business, begin to roll back the tide of red tape and regulation and do something about the £32 billion extra burden about which the CBI complained this week?

Mr. Byers: The £32 billion of red tape to which the CBI referred includes the cost of providing people with four weeks' paid holiday a year, which the right hon. Gentleman would scrap. It also includes the cost of implementing the national minimum wage, which he would scrap. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman, in his principal position as shadow Secretary of State, and his deputy, the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan), do not believe in the principle of a national


minimum wage. They are clearly on the record as saying that, so there can be no doubt about it. The right hon. Gentleman attacks red tape, but in reality he is trying to attack basic decent standards in the workplace. That is a classic Tory agenda which the Government reject. We believe that decent standards in the workplace support improved economic performance.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The right hon. Gentleman is wrong about our policies on the minimum wage. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] He is factually incorrect, but we are right about his policies. He is more concerned with preserving all the extra jobs and expenditure in his own Department than with helping British industry to generate jobs in its sector. How can he be so complacent when the Institute of Chartered Accountants has produced another survey that shows that the cost to the average small business of implementing the additional regulations and legislation has risen from under £5,000 last year to over £8,000 this year? Will the Secretary of State leave his fantasy world of initiatives, advisers and extra civil servants and start to stand up for British industry? Will he take the lead from us and switch some of that expenditure over to make a cut in business rates for all small businesses?

Mr. Byers: Let us get away from that fantasy world and address what Opposition Members have said on the record. The right hon. Gentleman's deputy, the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton, called the national minimum wage a "cretinous" idea—he should know. The right hon. Gentleman himself has said that the national minimum wage would undermine the country's economic performance, as the record shows—

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Totally untrue.

Mr. Byers: The shadow Chancellor did not consult the right hon. Gentleman when he suddenly announced that the Conservative party was going to endorse the national minimum wage.
The right hon. Gentleman talked about the problems that the Government face. However, the facts show that over 1 million more people are in work since the Labour party took office. Today, we are announcing that we have delivered on one of our key manifesto pledges, as 250,000 young people are in jobs as the result of our measures. That is the reality of the situation. The right hon. Gentleman can live in his own fantasy world, but we are delivering for the people of our country.

Manufacturing Industry (West Midlands)

Dr. Lynne Jones: If he will assess the performance of manufacturing industry in the west midlands. [139532]

The Minister for Trade (Mr. Richard Caborn): The Office for National Statistics figures for 1997, which are the latest figures available, show that the performance of manufacturing industry in the west midlands, on a gross value added per employee basis, is 91.5 per cent. of the UK average.

Dr. Jones: My right hon. Friend will be aware that many manufacturing businesses in the west midlands face

an uncertain future. At a meeting with the Engineering Employers Federation this week, there was considerable concern about the impact of the climate change levy on the competitiveness of companies with high energy costs that do not qualify for negotiated agreements under current arrangements. One business faces additional costs of £1,000 per employee. Will my right hon. Friend undertake to raise with the Chancellor the possibility of a rebate for companies that undertake to reach ISO 14001 environmental standards? In that way, CO2 emissions can be reduced

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady's question is far too long.

Mr. Caborn: I fully appreciate my hon. Friend's concern and the representation made by the Engineering Employers Federation. She will accept that taxation is always a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, but I shall ensure that her concerns and those of the industry are passed on to my right hon. Friend at the earliest opportunity.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: Is the Minister aware of the CBI's view that the climate change levy favours only organisations that are going to make a change, rather than those that have already invested in change, which include Sony in south Wales—[HON. MEMBERS: "West midlands"]—and many organisations in my constituency and in that of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones). I am a west midlands Member of Parliament, as you know, Mr. Speaker. Has not legislation introduced by the Government destroyed industry in my constituency, including Armitage Shanks, one of the largest manufacturers of toiletware in the United Kingdom? It is all very well for the Minister for Trade to laugh, but hundreds of people were employed by Armitage Shanks, which was a major exporter—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the Minister has got the point.

Mr. Caborn: I remind the hon. Gentleman that the director general of the CBI, Digby Jones, made clear in his speech that he was pleased that boom and bust had been removed for the first time in a long time. One of the most expensive commodities for business is uncertainty. This country now has the soundest macro-economic framework that it has had for many years. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, we also have the best employment figures for many years. We have reduced by a quarter of a million the number of young people who were unemployed when we came to power. This country's biggest impediment to growth is lack of skills and the diabolical position in which the previous Administration left the economy, which we are now struggling to put right.

Biotechnology Clusters

Dr. Ian Gibson: If he will make a statement on the development of biotechnology clusters. [139533]

The Minister for Small Business and E-Commerce (Ms Patricia Hewitt): My noble Friend Lord Sainsbury led a team to look at the development of biotechnology clusters. Its report was published in August last year and the Government have acted on all its recommendations.

Dr. Gibson: In a recent high-profile debate, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said:
Biotechnology is the next wave of the knowledge economy. This is an industry whose market in Europe alone is expected to be worth over £70 billion by 2005. The number of people employed in biotech, or who depend on its uses, could be as high as three million, as we catch up with the American industry—currently eight times the size of Europe's.
My right hon. Friend said that we would catch up, but how is that possible when Americans measure the establishment of new companies by the hour, week or month, and we measure it by the year? Why are we not ensuring that biotechnology companies progress in areas such as the west midlands and Bolsover, where new and exciting talents and industry are desperately needed?

Ms Hewitt: My hon. Friend is right about the importance and potential of the biotechnology industry. He will have welcomed my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's announcement last week of a £725 million increase in the science budget. Of that increase, £110 million is earmarked for genomics. My hon. Friend will also welcome the fact that we are investing during the next three years a further £165 million through the regional development agencies, including those in the east of England and in the west midlands, to support cluster development, including biotechnology clusters.

Mr. Graham Brady: Does the Minister understand that the reason why new companies form every week in the United States is that it has a low-tax, low-regulation economy? Will not the £32 billion of additional regulation introduced by the Government drive the clusters to other countries around the world?

Ms Hewitt: It is typical of the hon. Gentleman to talk down the United Kingdom. The fact of the matter is that we have the second-largest and most mature biotechnology sector in the world. We remain the biotechnology leader within the European Union. Three quarters of the new drugs developed in the European Union are developed here in the UK, which has excellent companies. By investing in the science base, as we are doing, and by helping science institutions more effectively to commercialise their research, we will get many more new companies. The hon. Gentleman should reflect on the announcement made by Conservative Front Benchers yesterday, stating that the Tories would cut the funding that we are investing in those new companies.

Mr. Andrew Miller: I welcome Lord Sainsbury's report, but what steps will the Government take specifically to assist industrial biotechnology? Bearing in mind the work that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been doing along with others in the north-west, will my hon. Friend consider carefully the fantastic successes in industrial biotechnology in the north west and urge the Government

to inject more support into the projects going to our academic institutions there, thus helping our industrial partners?

Ms Hewitt: My hon. Friend makes an important point, and I am glad to say that, as a result of the north-west science review competition, we have already invested more than £26 million from the science budget in the north-west's science base. Earlier this year, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State set up the north-west science and Daresbury development group, which includes a wide range of local partners, to consider how further to build upon the north-west's considerable science strength, and that group will report shortly.

Tobacco Manufacturing

Mr. Christopher Chope: When he last met the Tobacco Workers Association to discuss job prospects in British tobacco manufacturing. [139534]

The Minister for Small Business and E-Commerce (Ms Patricia Hewitt): My hon. Friend the Minister for Public Health and I met representatives of the Tobacco Workers Alliance on 26 October. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe) and the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) were also present.

Mr. Chope: That has not done much to satisfy the workers who will be affected by the Government's deliberate and wilful campaign to destroy 1,600 tobacco manufacturing jobs in Southampton. We know that the Labour party received £1 million from Bernie Ecclestone to save a few jobs in Formula 1, but what price is the Minister demanding to save 1,600 jobs in export manufacturing in Southampton?

Ms Hewitt: I do not recall the hon. Gentleman expressing any concern about the fate of the hundreds of thousands of miners whose jobs were destroyed by the previous Administration. Crocodile tears from the hon. Gentleman will not impress anyone. I stress that the EU directive on labelling and tar levels, to which the hon. Gentleman refers, will not take effect before January 2004 at the earliest. There is a great deal of time for the tobacco industry and other sectors in the supply chain to adjust to those changes. I have every sympathy for the workers, who of course are anxious about their job prospects, but I have stressed to the Tobacco Workers Alliance not only that the companies have time to adjust to the prospect, but that direct help will be available to any workers who lose their jobs. We do not accept the estimates that have been made, but if any workers face the threat of redundancy, we shall ensure that we give them every help to find other jobs.

Liz Blackman: I, too, have constituents who work in the tobacco industry who are equally concerned about job losses. Has my hon. Friend made any rough estimates of the job losses if the directive is implemented, and will she agree to meet representatives of the tobacco industry in my constituency to hear their concerns?

Ms Hewitt: Of course I would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend and any colleagues whom she wishes to bring


to discuss the matter with me. I stress that neither the European Commission nor my Department accept the estimates that have been offered by the Tobacco Workers Alliance and the industry of potential job losses. British American Tobacco has said that much of the overseas market for its cigarettes depends upon the premium "made in Britain" brand. There is every reason to think that the industry can continue to export successfully even if the tar levels are reduced. It is also worth saying that, when the earlier directive on tar levels was introduced, the industry predicted that there would be hundreds of thousands of direct and indirect job losses, but they did not materialise.

Mr. William Ross: Do the Government recall that, in past years, tobacco workers sounded a clear warning about the consequences of increasing taxation on tobacco? That was ignored, and we have seen a constant rise in smuggling and the consequent loss of jobs in the United Kingdom industry. Why do the Government continue to ignore the warnings that are being sounded by tobacco workers on the EU ban?

Ms Hewitt: It is worth remembering that tobacco kills and that high-tar cigarettes kill more people more quickly. Our estimate is that the new directive will strengthen the internal market and protect health. In particular, we estimate that between 400 and 750 lives a year could be saved by the implementation of the directive in the UK. We must take account—the president of the Tobacco Workers Alliance herself made this point to me—of the health impact of smoking. That is why we strongly support the directive.

Citizens Advice Bureaux

5. Mr. Alun Michael: What steps he is taking to ensure that the citizens advice bureau service is available at a consistent level throughout England and Wales. [139535]

The Minister for Trade (Mr. Richard Caborn): The Government help to ensure that the citizens advice service is available at a consistent level throughout England and Wales through their support for and funding of the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux. This year, the Government provided £15.7 million to that organisation to maintain standards through support and training to the individual citizens advice bureaux in England and Wales.

Mr. Michael: I welcome the Government's support for the national association, to which I pay tribute for its work throughout England and Wales. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the quality of consistently maintained support is of use only if it is accessible to people in all parts of England and Wales? Will he encourage local authorities in every area of the country, especially those providing services to deprived areas in towns and cities, or flexible services in more rural areas, to ensure that local services are adequately supported and funded?

Mr. Caborn: First, I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for his work in the voluntary sector—he has been a great supporter of citizens advice bureaux. Local authorities deal with the local distribution of the service.

It is worth noting that the UK gets £30-worth of work for every £1 spent on voluntary support, which makes the service very cost effective. I concur with my right hon. Friend—any local authority that does not take cognisance of that should now do so, to ensure that that valuable service is available to its electorate. Secondly, the consumer support network, which was announced by my hon. Friend the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs in October, is giving a first-class service to many people who have problems with consumer affairs.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: What would the Minister say to any county council that refused to help citizens advice bureaux?

Mr. Caborn: I would say that such a council should review its position. Although the Government are very supportive of citizens advice bureaux, the decision rightly rests with local authorities. However, I would ask any such authority to revisit the electorate's need for the service.

Post Office

Miss Anne McIntosh (Vale of York): If he will make a statement on the future of the post office network. [139537]

The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Stephen Byers): The Government are committed to maintaining a nationwide network of post offices. That commitment was clearly demonstrated when we accepted all 24 recommendations of the performance and innovation unit report, "Counter Revolution: Modernising the Post Office Network", which was published in June. A key recommendation was to develop the role of sub-postmasters and mistresses as government general practitioners. I am pleased to inform the House that, later today, the contract will be signed to begin the government general practitioner project.

Miss McIntosh: Is the Secretary of State aware of the number of post offices and sub-post offices in the Vale of York that have closed under his stewardship? Is he also aware that utility companies such as Northern Electric and Gas have written to sub-post offices such as that run by Mrs. Holden in Huby to say that they are passing on the climate change levy to post offices and sub-post offices? I am not aware that they are heavy industrial users of electricity. Is that not another hammer blow against sub-post offices, which will put them out of business in rural areas such as the Vale of York?

Mr. Byers: I shall certainly examine the hon. Lady's example with great interest and concern. On the wider issue of the post office network, we have recognised the important role that post offices play in rural and urban communities. That is why, for example, we have introduced measures to provide a subsidy to the network. That is the first time that that has been done and it clearly demonstrates our commitment to maintain a nationwide network.

Mr. Martin O'Neill: Post offices in central Scotland are going through a period of renewed confidence as a consequence of the announcement that


was made in the summer. They are already benefiting from being online, and there has been a reduction in the tedious work load that so troubled post offices in the past. Will my right hon. Friend take it from me that there is a genuine feeling in many areas of the country that the post office problem is on the way to being resolved?

Mr. Byers: I am pleased to hear that the network in central Scotland is responding positively to the measures that the Government are introducing. There is no doubt that we need a modernised network to meet the new demands that are being made. I believe that the more than £500 million that we are investing in the computerisation of every post office will pay enormous dividends in the future, and will allow post offices to extend their facilities and the range of services that they offer the public. That would never have happened under a Conservative Government, who were prepared, through neglect, to see the network decline. We believe that we now have a clear process in place that will support the network and ensure that it can meet the challenges that lie ahead.

Dr. Vincent Cable: Does the Minister recall his recent answer to my written parliamentary question, which confirmed that the annual rate of decline of post office branches has accelerated from 200 a year to 333 in the first six months of this financial year? Is not a major factor in the uncertainty of the branches the lack of confidence in the concept of the people's bank? Although it is welcome that the Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation has this week endorsed the people's bank, are not other leading clearers rubbishing it in the press? As Treasury Ministers have declined the opportunity to put the social obligations of the banks on a statutory footing, what confidence has the Secretary of State that the people's bank will take off and provide income for the banking system?

Mr. Byers: It is worth reflecting on the fact that in the first half of this year closures in rural areas were 20 per cent. down on the corresponding period for last year. There are clear indications that people are responding positively to the programme that we have outlined.
The hon. Gentleman is right to point out the important role that universal banking services can play in a modernised post office network. Like him, I welcome the announcement by HSBC earlier this week of its broad support for the concept of a universal bank—a post office-based solution. However, the hon. Gentleman should not believe all he reads in the press. The discussions and negotiations with the banks are proceeding well, and I hope that an agreement will be concluded in the not-too-distant future, so that we can provide banking services through the post office network.

Mr. David Borrow: A couple of weeks ago, the Minister responsible for the Post Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, West and Hessle (Mr. Johnson), met sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses in my constituency, and he went a long way towards satisfying many of their concerns. However, he was unable completely to satisfy their concern about the perception that the Department of Social Security is still encouraging benefit recipients, including pensioners, to have payments made direct into their bank accounts.

May I urge my right hon. Friend to have further discussions with his colleagues to ensure that all sections of the DSS understand Government policy in this area and realise the importance of maintaining the post office network?

Mr. Byers: I am aware of those concerns. I ask my hon. Friend to provide any evidence of such action by the DSS. I had the pleasure of addressing the national council of the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters last Friday, when this issue was raised. I invited them also to provide evidence. The agreement in government is clear. Although from 2003 there will be a progressive move towards automated credit transfer, that will not be the case between now and then, so we have a period in which to ensure that new revenue streams are developed within the post office network.

Mr. Richard Page: Is the Secretary of State aware that, with two sub-post offices closing every day, with the universal banking service looking increasingly flabby and unlikely to plug the gap, with the rural White Paper acting as a fig leaf of support for sub-post offices and with the savage introduction of ACTs, he is presiding over the meltdown of our sub-post offices?
Bearing in mind the embarrassment of the dome, the confusion on the railways, the collapse of our textile industry and the climate levy which will destroy business after business, will the right hon. Gentleman tell us when we shall have a Minister who will take responsibility for his or her actions? When will he do the decent thing and resign?

Mr. Byers: That was almost worth waiting for.
There is a serious point here—I have been trying to find out what constitutes Conservative policy on the Post Office. One of the issues with which we have had to deal in government is the problem of years of neglect of the network, over which the Conservative party presided.
Yesterday evening I consulted "Believing in Britain" to see whether there was a page about the Post Office, a paragraph about the Post Office, a sentence about the Post Office, or even a word about the Post Office. The Tories' programme for the future did not include a single word about the Post Office.
That stands in stark contrast to what we have done in office. There is now a statutory requirement to protect the network, and we have the ability to give it a subsidy. More than £500 million is being spent on computerising post offices up and down the country, and £270 million is guaranteed in this year's spending review. We are a Government committed to the post office network and delivering it with a real vision of a network of the future.
That, as I have said, is in stark contrast to the Conservative party, which says nothing about the Post Office. Ours is a party with a vision for the future, which we intend to deliver.

Consumer Protection

Tony Wright: What plans he has to provide stronger consumer protection by way of regulation of trade associations. [139538]

The Minister for Trade (Mr. Richard Caborn): The Government consider self-regulation through codes of practice run by trade associations to be an effective way of strengthening protection for consumers. My Department has no plans to regulate trade associations.

Tony Wright: When our constituents want the services of a tradesman—perhaps a plumber, a builder or an electrician—and turn to "Yellow Pages", they find lists of people who claim to be members of this association or that federation, all of whom seem to offer some kind of protection for those who buy into their services. The fact is that that protection is entirely bogus: no protection at all is built into the schemes involved. Why cannot the Office of Fair Trading provide a kite mark, so that those who use members of such schemes are given the reality of protection rather than just the appearance of it?

Mr. Caborn: I appreciate my hon. Friend's concern. We hope to present a Bill when we have time to do so. In the meantime, let me say that my hon. Friend has made his point before, and that my Department is discussing with "Yellow Pages" how the arrangements can be tightened up. There are a number of pilot projects with various trade associations to ensure that there is policing of the trade marks that have been issued by the OFT. I hope that when the pilot projects have given us a little more experience, we shall be able to legislate.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright) made a good point about misleading advertising in respect of services in particular, but does the Minister accept that trade associations are vital to business? They enable businesses to negotiate from a position of strength with Government and local authorities. Might not further regulation of such associations be counter-productive?

Mr. Caborn: That is exactly the line that the Government are taking. We are not legislating in the sense that we are making regulation mandatory; we are saying that we will have a code of conduct. We believe that a code is the right approach, as it permits flexibility and does not require legislation to be changed. We think that that is the right way forward. Adopting that flexible approach, and working with the Government and the Office of Fair Trading, the trade associations can protect consumers and run out many of the rogues to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright) referred.

Mr. Dennis Turner: Will the Minister bring a little Christmas cheer to millions of beer drinkers in Britain by introducing stronger consumer regulations, so that we can achieve a full and fair pint?

Mr. Caborn: I know that that subject is a personal concern for my hon. Friend and one on which he has campaigned for many years. Unfortunately, the Government have not yet made a decision on the matter, but I hope that we will be able to make one in the not-too-distant future.

Mr. David Chidgey: I listened very carefully to the Minister's comments on regulating trade

associations. When will he find time to examine the problems in the funeral industry—in which, as he must know, different codes of practice are operating in different associations? When will the Government take action to ensure that the industry introduces a unified code of practice, to include standards and training, to set at rest the minds of millions of people who, in the past few years, have heard stories about the industry?

Mr. Caborn: That is a valid point, and I hope that we will be able to discuss it with the Office of Fair Trading and trade associations. I recently spoke to the secretary general of the Confederation of British Industry, which has 168 affiliated trade associations. Nationally, there are more than 600 trade associations. A little rationalisation might be effective in helping consumers to receive a better service. There are a few problems on the business side, such as the need for rationalisation, and if we could solve that problem not only consumers but their members would receive a better service.

Miners (Compensation)

Mr. David Taylor: How many ex-miners and their families in the east midlands have received mining-related health compensation in the last 12 months. [139539]

The Minister for Competitiveness (Mr. Alan Johnson): In the past 12 months, the Department has made more than 252 individual payments, totalling over £1 million, in full, final and interim settlement to claimants living in the east midlands. Progress in settling claims has been too slow everywhere. That is why my right hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe announced in September a programme of improvements to the process, and said that we would be making more than 19,000 higher and additional expedited payments by Christmas, totalling £100 million.

Mr. Taylor: I commend the hard work of the Energy Minister. However, is it not the case that tens of thousands of sick, disabled elderly and dying colliers are trapped in a compensation maze populated by dilatory doctors, lethargic lawyers and middlemen on the make? Can the Minister reassure the House that claims handlers IRISC and medical assessors Healthcall are up to the job of clearing that sorry backlog? Do not the miners who sacrificed their health in winning the nation's coal deserve from the nation much, much better than this?

Mr. Johnson: I agree completely with my hon. Friend's final comment, and I realise how deeply important it is to communities across the country that we get that money to the people who need it as quickly as possible. As I know he appreciates, it is a very complex scheme. We are getting in records and claim packs much more quickly, but there is a bottleneck in medical assessments. We are clearing 400 medical assessments a week, but my right hon. Friend intends to get that up to 1,000 a week.
On the specific medical points that my hon. Friend mentioned, we are introducing nine new mobile scanning teams to collect medical records and, centrally, another four new teams. There is a major push to get more doctors


involved, with considerable success so far, and 13 new recruits being added to the current 173. We are, therefore, very well aware of the points that my hon. Friend has made, and we shall be redoubling our efforts to ensure that that money reaches those who need it and deserve it as quickly as possible.

Mr. John Bercow: Given that 6,314 claimants have died after submitting a claim but before receiving settlement of it, would the hon. Gentleman be good enough to tell the House what proportion of those 6,314 cases is in the east midlands? Will he guarantee that in each and every case, without fail, the next of kin will receive the sum due, and that in no case will the money be allowed to remain sloshing around in Treasury coffers?

Mr. Johnson: That is a rather superficial question on an important topic. Of course the money will go to the next of kin of those claimants who have died. We have moved to get compensation to miners as quickly as we can—£1 million a day was being paid in compensation last week, and the total cost will be £2 billion. We will provide proper compensation for people who have suffered through all these years. People in the mining communities realise that if a Labour Government were not in power now, there would be no chance of receiving those moneys—that is a different matter from the delays that we face now.

Mr. Vernon Coaker: I congratulate my hon. Friend and the Labour Government on their efforts to make sure that miners and their families get the compensation that they deserve. In the east midlands—including my constituency—there is continuing concern at the speed with which claims are being sorted. Will my hon. Friend make sure that any changes made to speed up the process will be monitored by the Government? Will the Government take speedy action if we do not process the claims from miners in my constituency, Nottinghamshire and beyond?

Mr. Johnson: My hon. Friend makes an important point. My right hon. Friend the Energy Minister is looking at these points carefully. It is true that in a little short of 18 months in office she has done more for the mining communities than the previous Government did in 18 years.

Mr. Mark Todd: What representations he has received on the progress of mineworkers compensation claims. [139540]

The Minister for Competitiveness (Mr. Alan Johnson): As I have said, there is wide frustration that progress has been so slow. We have received many representations about this from Members of Parliament and claimants and through the media. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe recently received three petitions, signed by 17,000 people, to which she has responded. The Department and all concerned are working urgently to improve throughput, but we should not forget that this is a part of a continuing legal process. Mr. Justice Turner, who is still handling these cases, noted at the hearing in Sheffield earlier this month that the scheme is of necessity complex

in making sure claimants get all the compensation due to them. This inevitably means there have been delays in putting the process into effect.

Mr. Todd: My visit to the IRISC headquarters in Sheffield prompted me to write to our right hon. Friend the Energy Minister suggesting a range of ways in which the process could be speeded up. For instance, we could remove the wasted time of checking non-existent employment and pension records, which currently delays the payment of claims, and the wasteful process that Healthcall has followed in pursuing claims with GPs, whereby someone arrives, takes just one record and goes away when there are 10 or 12 miners' records in the GP's practice. Will my hon. Friend insist on a review of the entire process to stop time being wasted? I have seen some progress, which I welcome.
Will my hon. Friend work with Healthcall to secure a centre to examine ex-miners in the south Derbyshire coalfield? It could serve that area and the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Taylor) I would suggest Swadlincote, Coalville or Burton as a location.

Mr. Johnson: My hon. Friend makes good points and my right hon. Friend the Energy Minister will consider them. We must clear the bottleneck quickly, but there are legal complexities. It is not just a matter of visiting a GP as though one were making a normal visit for a health check; it often requires a second visit. All our attention is centred on clearing the bottleneck and we will take up my hon. Friend's suggestion. We will keep in touch with him and all other Members of Parliament concerned with the developments.

Mr. Richard Allan: The Minister has referred to the issue of recruiting doctors who can perform the assessments required for the compensation claims. How would he respond to the case of a constituent of mine who is experienced in this area but is expressly banned from working on the scheme because she once worked for an agency which had some relationship with the Benefits Agency medical services? She was told that within the contractual arrangements from the DTI, any doctor who had ever worked for BAMS was prevented from working on the compensation processes now. Will the Minister consider looking again at this matter, given that many doctors who have expertise in compensation claims may have had some incidental relationship with the Benefits Agency in the past?

Mr. Johnson: The hon. Member raises a matter of which I am unaware and about which I suggest he writes to me. Something about it sounds wrong to me, and we need to look at it. The handling agreement was reached in early 1998, but I am sure that there is enough flexibility to deal with the sort of points that he has raised.

Mr. Michael Clapham: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the judge monitoring progress in this matter has recently expressed the view that ex gratia payments would not be the way to deal fairly with compensation? He said that they would overcompensate some, and undercompensate others. Will my hon. Friend also take this opportunity to condemn Plaid Cymru, which has distributed literature in south Wales calling for ex gratia


payments? The party has misled miners' families into believing that ex gratia payments represent a simple solution to the problem.

Mr. Johnson: My hon. Friend raises an important point. Mr. Justice Turner did indeed make those comments about ex gratia payments, and it is important to remember that there is a big difference between such payments and compensation payments. If we went down the route of ex gratia payments, we would not be benefiting the people whom we are seeking to assist.

Sustainable Energy

Miss Anne Begg: What action the Government have taken to encourage the development of sustainable energy. [139542]

The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Stephen Byers): The Government have taken a wide range of actions, which are contained in the UK climate change programme, which was published on 17 November.

Miss Begg: What steps are the Government taking with respect to the development of offshore wind energy? Aberdeen has a great deal of knowledge about the technologies involved in offshore development in the oil and gas industry. Have the Government looked to see whether some technologies in the oil and gas industries can be transferred for use in the development of offshore wind facilities, so that areas such as mine can stay ahead of the game?

Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Great skills and expertise have been developed, especially in cities such as Aberdeen, as a result of the exploitation of the North sea. There is an opportunity to diversify from the traditional work involved in that exploitation, and to examine ways to harness the power of wind as an alternative form of energy.
The Government have been looking closely at the matter. I was pleased that we were able to announce just three weeks ago that we were now able to make available £89 million in capital grants to support energy crops and offshore wind developments. I have no doubt that that financial contribution will make a real difference in the development of offshore wind technology. That development will be good in terms of renewables, and good in terms of creating employment opportunities in cities such as Aberdeen.

Mr. Andrew Robathan: As far as it goes, I welcome that money, especially if it leads to an increase in the generation of renewable energy from offshore wind. However, will the Secretary of State explain how he squares the provision of that capital grant with the recent lifting of the moratorium on gas-fired power stations? [Interruption.] In addition, may I draw the Secretary of State's attention to the application for a combined cycle gas turbine station in Enderby in my constituency? It is causing a great deal of concern there.

Mr. Byers: I make no comment on what my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) said from a sedentary position, although I think that he may have been quite accurate. On the important issue of sustainable


energy, we were able to support the lifting of the moratorium on gas-fired power stations because we want a diversity of provision in the United Kingdom energy sector. One way to achieve that balance is to ensure that gas-fired power stations have the opportunity to make a contribution.
However, encouraging that contribution must run alongside the need to maintain the coal industry, and that explains why we will be providing a subsidy of £110 million to support the coal industry over the next two years. That goes along with having a sustainable energy policy for the United Kingdom.

Mr. Bob Blizzard: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is important that we sustain our reserves of oil and gas in the North sea for as long as possible by ensuring that as many marginal fields as possible are fully exploited? There was a clear message in the pre-Budget report that the Chancellor was looking for new levels of investment from the oil companies, which was why he resisted the temptation to impose some kind of windfall tax. What assessment has my right hon. Friend made of new levels of capital investment by the oil companies?

Mr. Byers: In the context of how we can develop further the reserves that are still held in the North sea—and certainly off the coast of my hon. Friend's constituency of Waveney—there are opportunities, but they will require additional investment from the oil and gas companies. It was wholly appropriate for the Chancellor to indicate that, in reviewing—as we always do—the fiscal and tax regimes affecting the sector and the industry, he will take into account the level of investment made by those companies. I hope that they will look carefully at the new opportunities in the North sea. Carrying out such investment will place them in a far stronger position, so we should encourage them to do so.

Mr. Nick Gibb: How does it help the promotion of an environmentally friendly energy policy to have banned the building of new gas-fired power stations for the past three years and to have the implementation of the new electricity trading arrangements delayed yet again, adding £57 to the average electricity Bill? We have higher electricity prices and higher CO2 emissions. They seem to be the cornerstone of the right hon. Gentleman's energy policy—damaging business and damaging the environment.
Who is responsible for the delays to the new trading arrangements? Is it the Department of Trade and Industry, is it Ofgem, or is it, again, the Secretary of State?

Mr. Byers: I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman might have supported the decision to lift the moratorium on new gas-fired power stations. It is not true that there was a ban—I allowed one or two to go ahead because of their particular circumstances.
The hon. Gentleman raises an important question about the price of electricity. We have changed the way in which electricity is to be traded, and he referred to the new trading arrangements. Of course, the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) was an architect of the system that we inherited—an inefficient system that inflated prices artificially.
Because of the changes that are being introduced and the forward market, electricity prices are already down. The new trading arrangements will be in place, and prices are already down as a result of that. They are down on last year, the year before that and the year before that. Consumers are seeing a reduction in their electricity prices because of the action that the Government have taken. We have moved away from the failed privatisation of the previous Government. Our system is delivering to consumers, which theirs failed to do.

E-commerce

Mr. Paul Marsden: If he will make a statement on progress made in encouraging businesses to communicate electronically with (a) customers and (b) other businesses. [139543]

The Minister for Small Business and E-Commerce (Ms Patricia Hewitt): There are now 1.7 small and medium-sized businesses online, and we are extending the UK online for business programme to help more businesses use the full potential of information and communication technologies to get real business benefits.

Mr. Marsden: I welcome the Government's determination to lead the way in Europe in delivering e-commerce business opportunities. Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating Shrewsbury's businesses? They are among the first in rural areas to invest in asymmetric digital subscriber line technology, which is being rolled out by BT and is delivering better services and better quality communications.

Ms Hewitt: I am delighted that Shrewsbury and the rural communities have been included in BT's ADSL roll-out programme and I congratulate the businesses that are taking advantage of it. We are determined to ensure

that broadband, high-speed internet access is delivered to businesses and consumers across the United Kingdom as quickly as possible.

Mr. Alan Duncan: In the past fortnight, the prospects for electronic communications have not progressed; they have taken a complete and utter nose dive. The auction of broadband fixed wireless licences has been a complete flop. Of the 42 licences on offer, 26 remain unsold; the auction raised £38 million instead of the predicted £1 billion; and rural areas, in particular, will continue to be an internet black spot. Why does the Minister think that the auction was such a failure? Does she accept responsibility, or does she blame her civil servants? Will she now make a clear statement to the House on how she will retrieve this sorry state of affairs and reintroduce some sort of competence and momentum in developing this important part of the communications infrastructure?

Ms Hewitt: It is a great pity that the hon. Gentleman has completely failed to acknowledge the fact that more than half of the United Kingdom population live in areas that will now be served by a new source of high-speed internet, which is broadband fixed wireless access. Those include Scotland, Northern Ireland and the north of England. That is good news for businesses and consumers in those areas. I am reviewing with the Radiocommunications Agency how we should make best use of the remaining spectrum in other parts of the country.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have not made good progress today. I hope that in the new Session I shall hear shorter questions and briefer answers. It would also help if Ministers resisted the temptation to discuss Opposition policies, which are not their responsibility—[Interruption.] Order. Let the Speaker chair the proceedings.

Speaker's Statement

Mr. Speaker: It is now clear that the House of Lords will not pass the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill in the current Session. That will constitute rejection of the Bill for the purposes of the Parliament Acts. The House has not directed that the Bill should not be passed for Royal Assent. It is therefore my duty to follow the procedure laid down. Accordingly, the House of Lords was asked to return the Bill to this House. In strict compliance with the requirements of the Parliament Acts, I have certified the Bill and I will ensure that it is submitted for Royal Assent at the time of prorogation.

Points of Order

Mr. Michael Fabricant: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On Tuesday, I asked the Deputy Prime Minister whether he had assessed the number of extra road deaths that might occur as a result of the increase in road traffic as people leave the railways. He answered by saying:
Clearly, a lot more people are travelling by car, and congestion will obviously increase … I have made no estimate of the increase in death rates, but I shall examine our figures and send an estimate to the hon. Gentleman.—[Official Report, 28 November 2000; Vol. 357, c. 800.]
Does that promise still hold, given that we are ending the parliamentary term? Will it continue over prorogation?

Mr. Speaker: Letters written by Ministers in response to matters raised in the House are not part of the formal proceedings. I have no doubt that undertakings given by Ministers in the House will be honoured, regardless of prorogation.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you use your influence in the new Session to secure from the Government better manners from Ministers when answering correspondence from Members of Parliament? Are you aware that the delays in some Departments are wholly unacceptable and that that is a discourtesy to colleagues in the House and a grave discourtesy to our constituents? It is wholly unnecessary and should be stopped.

Mr. Speaker: It is important that Ministers answer Members' correspondence timeously. Members have a duty to their constituents. I am sure that, as the matter has been put on the record, Ministers will take note.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In the best possible mannered way, I do not know whether this is a point of order or a point of frustration, but it is certainly a point of substance. In the other place, the noble Lord Macdonald gave undertakings that he would make a statement there about the air traffic controllers and, in particular, the negotiations with the staff of the British Air Line Pilots Association and the Institution of Professionals, Managers and Specialists. Do we have any assurance that a similar statement will be made in this House at the same time?

Mr. Speaker: No.

Sir Peter Emery: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Should we not make it absolutely clear that, as a matter of order, you were left with no alternative but to sign the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill and that you were able to take into consideration no aspect of your personal view—[Interruption.]—nor the views of a vast number of clerics who have written to The Times today? You were obliged to take the action that you took, and people must realise that it has nothing to do with your personal view.

Mr. Speaker: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman because he allows me to put on record the fact that clerics do not tell me what to do—the House tells me what to do.

Miss Anne McIntosh: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. One of the consequences of


invoking the Parliament Acts in relation to the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill is an aspect that has never been considered by this Chamber—the reduction of the age for anal intercourse for girls from 18 to 16. That causes great consternation among the Christian community of this country. I urge you to rule on the matter, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for the Chair.

Dr. Julian Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Have you been informed by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office of any intention that the Foreign Secretary will come to the House to make a statement about the proposed European Union rapid reaction force, which many Conservative Members with long experience of defence issues feel places the Anglo-American relationship and the security of Europe gravely at risk?

Mr. Speaker: No.

Mr. John Bercow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance as to the need for an urgent statement. Given that it is now more than a week since the appointment of the patriotism Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the hon. Member for North Swindon (Mr. Wills), is it not imperative that, before the House prorogues, the hon. Gentleman—or someone on his behalf—explains his work load, what he is getting up to and what resources he is using? Surely he should give some account of himself to the House.

Mr. Speaker: Those matters are for the Under?Secretary, not for me.

Mr. Edward Leigh: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On Monday, the Government laid on the Table the draft Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Research Purposes) Regulations 2000. During an Adjournment debate on 17 November, the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), said that it was the beginning, not the end, of a thorough, on-going debate. Have you received any information, Mr. Speaker,

as to whether the order will be debated on the Floor and voted on and when that might be, or when a Standing Committee might be appointed if that is appropriate?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for me.

Mr. Graham Brady: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This morning, the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Education and Employment held a press conference during which they made wholly spurious claims about the new deal; they claimed that 250,000 young people had been found jobs through it. Has there been any communication with you, Mr. Speaker, to the effect that either of the right hon. Gentlemen wants to come to the House to make a statement, where we can demonstrate that their claims are wholly false and incorrect?

Mr. Speaker: Again, the answer is no.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Has it crossed your mind that there has been no business statement or questions today and that—as is obvious to Labour Members—what the Tories are up to is asking you questions that have nothing to do with points of order? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] They are trying to substitute business questions with points of order; that is an abuse of the procedures of the House—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think the hon. Gentleman is asking me a question that has nothing to do with me.

Hon. Members: Aha!

Mr. Andrew Robathan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
May I first clarify the fact that, had there been business questions, I had no intention of asking a question?
Further to my earlier point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Parliament Act is an important matter, but I realise that what has gone has gone. However, my understanding is that the purpose of the Act is that important constitutional measures should not be held up—the will of this House should not be defeated on important constitutional and manifesto issues. Are there not grounds for referring the Parliament Act to, for instance, the Law Lords, to interpret how it should work, especially in the present case where a majority of people in the country are opposed to the invoking of the Parliament Act notwithstanding the majority in this House?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is a Back Bencher; he can perhaps pursue such matters better than me.

Orders of the Day — Disqualifications Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Clause 1

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. George Howarth): I beg to move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
The other place agreed in Committee that this clause should stand part of the Bill, but it then voted to remove the clause on Report. Hon. Members will not be surprised that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has tabled a motion to reject the Lords amendment. The original clause 1 is the central clause of the Bill to which all the other clauses relate. Without it, the Bill is meaningless. Indeed, its only effect would be to repeal section 36(5) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, which enables members of the Irish Senate to take seats in the Northern Ireland Assembly. That was not the Government's intention and I do not believe it would have the support of hon Members. The intention of the Bill, quite simply, is to enable Members of the Irish Parliament to stand for, and to take up seats in, the United Kingdom legislatures. That is precisely what clause 1 in its original form would achieve.
The Government's reasons for pursuing the provision are simple. We believe that the Bill, with the original clause 1 included, shows the Government's recognition of the close and welcome ties between Britain and Ireland—ties that have been considerably strengthened in recent years with the coming into force of the British-Irish agreement and the changes to articles 2 and 3 of the Irish constitution. I understand that we and the Opposition are in accord on that. We want the Good Friday agreement to be taken forward.

Mr. John M. Taylor: It was not in the Good Friday agreement.

Mr. Howarth: I will come to that point in a moment.

Mr. William Ross: Where in the Good Friday agreement is there any indication that the Bill would be introduced?

Mr. Howarth: I will come to that very point in a moment, but I shall answer the specific question about the agreement now. I do not claim that the Good Friday agreement made provision for the Bill. My claim is that it is consistent with the Belfast agreement, not an integral part of it.
Britain's ties with Ireland set our relationship apart from those with other nations. Indeed, the relationship is stronger than that with most Commonwealth nations—a reality that is recognised by the fact that in all other

substantial aspects of British electoral law, Ireland and the Commonwealth are treated the same. It is only in this one remaining area that that parity of treatment is absent, and the Bill is intended to rectify that.
We do not believe that there is any intrinsic objection to the principle of enabling Members of foreign legislatures to stand for, or be elected to, legislatures in the United Kingdom, so long as they are prepared to stand by the obligations implied by membership of each of those Parliaments.

Mr. John M. Taylor: Can the Minister give a single instance in the past 100 years of a Commonwealth parliamentarian being elected to the House?

Mr. Howarth: No, and the hon. Gentleman knew the answer to the question before he asked it.

Mr. Taylor: Yes, I did.

Mr. Howarth: So the hon. Gentleman will not be any more enlightened than he was before. The provision in this Bill is there not because anyone will necessarily take advantage of it, but because it recognises the special relationship between Ireland and ourselves.

Mr. William Thompson: Given the fact that for more than 100 years no one has taken advantage of the law that means that Commonwealth parliamentarians are able to sit in this House, does that not suggest that the law itself is an anomaly and should be done away with?

Mr. Howarth: The point that I was making to the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) is that the law implies a set of relationships. It does not necessarily involve a right that will always be taken up. It recognises the warm relationships that exist between the Commonwealth and the United Kingdom. This Bill recognises the warm relationships that exist, particularly following the Good Friday agreement and the whole peace process, between ourselves and the Irish Government.
We accept that, in some cases, the holding of certain offices simultaneously may lead to conflicts of interest. That is why the Government significantly amended the Bill during its passage through the other place. Those amendments are in the second group that, I hope, we shall debate later this afternoon. They were tabled in response to the well-reasoned and legitimate concerns that were expressed in the House on Second Reading. They have made the Bill better and stronger.

Mr. William Cash: I took part in those proceedings at very short notice, so will the Minister be good enough to tell me what would happen if a Member of the Dail, who had been a member of a proscribed organisation, wished to take up a place in this House? If he were elected, would he not be obliged, and should he not be expected, to eschew terrorism in all its forms as well as taking the oath of allegiance?

Mr. Howarth: The Good Friday agreement set in train arrangements between Ireland and ourselves and for the different legislatures in the United Kingdom. The principle


behind them was to move beyond the phase in which terrorism sadly scarred relationships in Northern Ireland and, on many occasions, in England and elsewhere. We are concerned with moving beyond that phase into a set of relationships with which all people can feel comfortable. This provision is a logical development in that direction, but it does not necessarily mean that anyone will take up a place in this House. Although that possibility is provided for and people are entitled to stand for election, the measure is more a recognition of the special relationships that exist.

Mr. Cash: I wish to take that point to a definite conclusion. The Minister is not telling me what I had hoped to hear. If a member of a proscribed organisation came to this House in the circumstances that I have described, would it not be essential that, before taking his seat, he publicly repudiated terrorism so that everyone would know the basis on which he sat in this House?

Mr. Howarth: My point is that the purpose behind the Good Friday agreement with which, I think, we all agree, is that individuals in the parties that were associated in the past with terrorism should repudiate terrorism. We want to judge them by their actions. Quite honestly, as the hon. Gentleman knows only too well, if someone with a background in a terrorist organisation took up his seat, he would have to make certain assurances that would amount to what the hon. Gentleman is suggesting.

Mr. Stephen Day: The Minister said that the Bill represented moving on from the terror that dominated Northern Ireland—and my word, we all welcome that—but surely terrorism still dominates society there. He appears to be refusing to acknowledge that such people are still armed to the teeth and still terrorise whole communities.

Mr. Howarth: It was not my intention to give that impression. There is a ceasefire, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has repeatedly made it clear that it is imperfect, and unacceptable activities happen from time to time. We have to consider the ceasefire in the round and judge its current state at any particular moment in time on advice from the security services and other agencies. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the situation is not perfect, but my right hon. Friend has to look at the situation in the round and judge whether the ceasefire is holding.
The amendments in the second group were tabled in response to the well-reasoned and legitimate concerns expressed in this House and the other place. Although we accepted that the safeguards were reasonable, at no point did we accept that representing two separate constituencies in two separate jurisdictions must result in a conflict of interest. In addition, we believed that the principle was firmly established in the precedent set by our relationships with Commonwealth countries and by section 36(5) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, which enabled Members of the Irish Senate to take up seats in the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Mr. Roy Beggs: Can the Minister say whether, as part of the discussions that led up to the proposal, the Irish Government gave an undertaking to rejoin the Commonwealth?

Mr. Howarth: No such undertaking was given and I do not know whether it was requested. I am not trying to

make the case that the Irish Government are part of the Commonwealth. The similarity is in the warmth of the relationships that exist between us and the Irish Government in light of the Good Friday agreement.
The Bill was produced in the spirit of greater co-operation that is enshrined in the Good Friday agreement, which the House will remember well. The agreement allowed for a referendum, and it was ratified by an overwhelming majority of the population who voted in the north and south of Ireland. There are arrangements for closer co-operation not only between north and south but between east and west, because that is also important.
Nationalists in Northern Ireland and their political representatives strongly supported the Belfast agreement, which included the principle of consent. The agreement did much more than recognise Northern Ireland's position within the United Kingdom. It also recognised the legitimate political aspirations of Irish nationalists for a united Ireland and provided for new institutions to develop better co-operation between the Irish Government and the devolved Administration in Northern Ireland.
Just as Unionists could not have accepted the new north-south arrangements without the principle of consent, nationalists could not have accepted the principle of consent without recognition of the very close and special relationship between the United Kingdom and Ireland and between Northern Ireland and the south. That relationship is not static; it is dynamic. The Belfast agreement provides for co-operation to be developed, and that is what we are doing in the Disqualifications Bill.
The legislative basis for the arrangements was the Northern Ireland Act 1998, so the arrangements and institutions have been approved by Parliament. Consequently, the principle of closer co-operation with Ireland has already been debated and agreed. The Bill is welcomed by the Irish Government because they, too, recognise the great benefits that close co-operation can bring. The Irish have amended their constitution—a significant and permanent act that required a referendum—in order to renounce the long-standing territorial claim over the north. I know that that has been welcomed by some hon. Members who might not welcome the totality of the Good Friday agreement.
With the enactment of the British-Irish agreement and the Irish Government's part in the Good Friday agreement, the Irish Government have displayed their commitment to working with this Government to build a better future for Northern Ireland. That future will be firmly based on the principle of consent. Those steps are not insignificant. The actions taken have been central to the peace process and to the dawn of a new period of peace and reconciliation, for the benefit not only of the people of Northern Ireland but of everybody in the United Kingdom.
I am sure that most right hon. and hon. Members would agree that the contribution of the Irish Government deserves to be praised and recognised. For all those reasons, I ask the House to disagree with the Lords in their amendment.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: Let me make it clear straight away that I agree with the Minister when he says that clause 1 is fundamental to the Bill. It is the Bill. As we are totally opposed to this very long Bill, we shall be dividing the House on the Lords amendment. We also


share the Minister's view that the other amendments are consequential, and we have no objections to them. Today's debate should be entirely on the Bill.
I welcome the Minister to the Dispatch Box. It is so long ago that it will almost certainly have slipped your mind, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as it will the minds of most Members, but when we last debated the Bill way back in January, the poor old Home Office took the brunt. Its Ministers were not very well briefed because it was not really their subject. The debate was decidedly embarrassing for everybody concerned. So, the House will be grateful that the Northern Ireland Office has at last come clean and made it clear that this is really a Northern Ireland Office Bill. I am pleased, in addition, that we have not a Home Office but a distinguished Northern Ireland Office Parliamentary Private Secretary on the Bench. We are pleased to see the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne) in his place.
Originally, there was a charade that the Bill was a modest piece of tidying-up legislation dreamt up by the Home Office, which suddenly felt that it would be right and proper for the Irish to sit in our Parliament and for us to sit in the Irish Parliament. That seemed completely untrue at the time—nobody believed the charade. Mercifully, the Government are now at least coming clean and claiming that the Bill is important to the peace process. At least we shall have transparency and honesty this time round.
1 pm
I shall briefly re-examine the history of the Bill, which was not in the Queen's Speech. As the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) has pointed out, it was not, in any shape or form, in the Belfast agreement, which we support. It suddenly appeared in January and was rushed through the House in one sitting. I suspect that all its stages were rushed through on the Floor of the House because the Government rightly identified it as a constitutional measure. We were told that the Bill was urgent, but the urgency diminished when it left the House in January, went to the other place and disappeared into a sort of Bermuda triangle, only to reappear many months later. The timetable for this debate on the penultimate day of the Session is the result of the Government losing interest in it and introducing it for proper debate and discussion in the other place extremely late in the day.
We can therefore disregard the idea that the Bill is important and urgent, as it is neither important nor urgent in the peace process. If it were, the Government would have made sure that it progressed expeditiously to the other place and it would probably have returned to us nine months ago. Instead, the Bill has had one of the most leisurely passages through the House that any piece of legislation has ever had.
The Minister has been helpful today, as he always is, and has given us a few more reasons for introducing the Bill. I think that I am paraphrasing correctly—I know that he will jump up at the Dispatch Box if I mislead the House in any way and traduce him—in saying that he stated that we want Members of the Irish Senate to sit in both legislatures because we get on well with the Irish. He said that we have a good relationship with the country of Ireland and the Irish Government—[Interruption.]
I never make a speech without the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) intervening, and people appreciate our great double act. However, before he gets excited, let me say that I endorse our close, happy and good relationship with the Republic of Ireland, our immediate neighbour and a fellow partner in the European Union.
We have much in common with the Republic, but we also have a special relationship—although the Minister did not use that phrase in response to an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor)—with the United States of America, which has come to the aid of Britain and Europe in two world wars. The USA also spearheads NATO which, despite proposals for a separate European army, is still our principal defence umbrella. Like our Irish friends, the Americans speak the same language as us, and we have a close relationship with them. There is no reason why American politicians should not sit in our Parliament or the Northern Irish Assembly or why we should not have reciprocal access to Congress. Equally, as someone who believes that it is in the country's interests to be in the EU, we generally have a good, robust relationship with all our EU partners.

Mr. George Howarth: indicated assent.

Mr. MacKay: I am glad that the Minister agrees. There is no reason whatever why we should not have French, German, Spanish and even Danish people—with whom we have the closest relationship of all—in our Parliament. Therefore, there is no good reason for singling out the Republic of Ireland, which is only one of the many countries with which we have a good, happy relationship, and saying that its people can sit in our legislatures and vice versa. That is not a happy state of affairs.
Let me move on to the Bill's constitutional aspects. The Bill is significant as it fundamentally changes rules on who can sit in this Parliament and who can sit in the Northern Ireland Assembly. We must consider carefully whether it is right and proper for people to sit in two Parliaments in two different countries, with two different allegiances. Any reasonable observer would say that such arrangements were anomalous and extremely unwise, and that there would have to be exceptional reasons for adopting them. Even the Minister would admit that no exceptional reasons whatever have been given.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Before the right hon. Gentleman gets carried away with that argument, is he aware that it is possible under European electoral law for people to stand for election in a European constituency in countries other than their own? Thus a British national could represent an Italian constituency in the European Parliament.

Mr. MacKay: I am sorry to hear that the hon. Gentleman thought that I was becoming carried away. I was only mildly warming up. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am fully aware of the arrangements to which he refers. However, he will confirm that, in the European Parliament, one cannot represent two constituencies in two separate countries at the same time. The point that the Opposition are making is that it is


anomalous for a politician to be elected to two separate Parliaments in two separate jurisdictions. There is no good reason for such a practice.

Mr. John D. Taylor: The hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) was correct, but his argument is inconsistent. He wants to apply the measure not to all members of the European Union, but only to the Republic of Ireland.

Mr. MacKay: It is up to the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) to address that point when he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Lembit Öpik: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that at least one member of the Conservative party sits in this House and in the European Parliament? [HON. MEMBERS: "Not any more."] I apologise—she does not do so any more. However, does the right hon. Gentleman accept that it is possible to do that and that other hon. Members have a dual mandate? Does he accept that, despite the potential conflict of interest between legislatures, those hon. Members have managed to pursue their activities responsibly and do both jobs reasonably well?

Mr. MacKay: I was fascinated by that intervention. As usual, the Liberal Democrats are out of date. First, my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) no longer represents an Essex constituency in the European Parliament. Secondly, it is perfectly acceptable to sit in two Parliaments if one represents one country. It is entirely up to electors and to individual political parties to decide whether it is wise or popular to allow that, but the Opposition have no fundamental objection. The hon. Members for Foyle (Mr. Hume) and for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) sit in two Parliaments, but, both here and in the European Parliament, they represent parts of the United Kingdom. That is not equivalent to the matter under discussion.
I hope that we now have the Liberals' support. This week, they have continuously made U-turns on the Floor of the House on all Northern Ireland matters. They started on the Government's side in January and are still on their side in the Lords. However, we now have every right to assume—I welcome and accept the olive branch—that the Liberals will now move to our side of the argument. Of course, that will be significant when a vote occurs later in the other place. I welcome that support, for which I thank the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik).

Mr. Douglas Hogg: May I put to my right hon. Friend a small example of the incompatibility of being a Member of two Parliaments? I have just come from a meeting with the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, at which we talked about sugar. It would be impossible if, for example, a person represented a constituency in one of the Commonwealth countries in the everything but arms regime which was demanding the inclusion of sugar in

that regime, and also represented a constituency in Britain in which sugar was grown, because there is a direct contradiction between the interests of the two.

Mr. MacKay: My right hon. and learned Friend makes a valid point. He might seek to expand on that interesting example later.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): The right hon. Gentleman spoke of U-turns. The House might like to be reminded that, on Second Reading, the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) said:
As we recognise that the aim of the Bill is to build on what has already been achieved in Northern Ireland, we will not oppose its Second Reading.—[Official Report, 24 January 2000; Vol. 343, c. 34.]
That was proved by the Division on clause 1 stand part, when 221 voted for the clause with only 24 against. The right hon. Gentleman jibes at the Liberal Democrats for their view on the detailed principles of the Bill, but he might seriously consider whether that is appropriate given that he is on not-too-secure ground.

Mr. MacKay: The Minister has a short memory. Back in January, he sat on the Treasury Bench for a full 27 hours without any sleep, which has clearly affected his memory a little. That is understandable, so I do not unduly complain. However, he will recall that I said earlier today that the Government, for which he was an advocate on that day, were saying that the measure was urgent and vital if the peace process was to move forward. That was what my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) accepted. It has now been proved that that was a false premise; it was not urgent, as I said earlier, because it was not taken through the other place for another 10 months.
Secondly, much has intervened. It was clear in January, and in yesterday's debate, in which the Minister took part, that he does not have a full grasp of what is going on in Northern Ireland. To be charitable, that is no doubt because of his other duties as a Home Office Minister. But the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland does have a full grasp of the situation. He is a distinguished Minister in the Northern Ireland Office and he will confirm that what I am about to say is correct.
Life has moved on since January. This is a point that I wanted to make in my speech, so it is convenient to do so now on the back of the Minister's intervention. If there was to be a further concession to republicans, there had to be other things in return. Despite the promise of the legislation, it has been all take by the paramilitaries and no give. Has one gun or one ounce of Semtex been handed in since January? Has there been an end to violence, racketeering, beatings, kneecappings, or the so-called punishment attacks and exclusions? The answer, sadly and tragically for many people in Northern Ireland, is no.
Let us forget about all that we have spoken of earlier. The Minister knows, and more or less admitted, that there is only one reason for introducing this bizarre constitutional Bill—this is my central and fundamental point—and that is as an additional confidence-building measure for Sinn Fein-IRA. Certain members of Sinn Fein might like to sit in this House, definitely want to or are sitting in the Northern Ireland Assembly and also wish to


sit in the Dail. They wish to do so for a variety of reasons, one of which is to claim a united Ireland when they speak in both. The second is to sit in the Dail and say that they are speaking for people in Northern Ireland. That could, just possibly, be a price worth paying if there had been full and complete decommissioning of illegally held arms and explosives—they were obliged to do that by last May under the Belfast agreement—and if there had been a total end to violence. However, none of that has happened.
1.15 pm
The people concerned cannot even bring themselves, after the passing of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000, to encourage Catholics to join the new force. It would be wrong to go down this dangerous constitutional route, which is hugely flawed, without getting anything in return. The process, which we all want to move forward, has been damaged by the fact that, although there has been concession after concession, precious little has been received in return. That fundamentally undermines the law-abiding majority in both communities in Northern Ireland and, equally important, those Members who represent them.
We may allow the Bill to pass today, but I do not believe that we will. Although we will be defeated in the House in a few hours' time by the Government's majority, the other place will again reject this wretched Bill, which will not reach the statute book. It will be very good if it does not, as it is a further concession to, and appeasement of, the men of violence, from whom we have received nothing in return.

Mr. Corbyn: Before the right hon. Gentleman concludes—he may still have some way to go—will he explain why he always talks down, minimises and denigrates the achievements of the peace process? We have had three years of ceasefire. I accept that it has been breached by some organisations—there has, for sure, been violence from loyalist and dissident republican groups. Does he accept that many in Northern Ireland are very disappointed by the way in which the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 ended up? It is important to enact the Bill because it builds on an agreement that has already been made. If we are serious about achieving peace in Northern Ireland, we must go the whole way with it.

Mr. MacKay: I translate that to mean the whole way to total appeasement, which, fortunately, is not what the majority of Members of the House want.
I reiterate that we started the process under my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), when he was Prime Minister, and my predecessor Lord Mayhew of Twysden. We support the Belfast agreement. Our continuous complaint, which the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland regularly hears, is that the agreement has not been implemented in full. The fact that it has been implemented only in part makes it badly flawed with respect to the peace process. In my view, the peace process will work effectively only if the agreement is implemented in full.
That part of the agreement that so worries us involves the fact that there has been no decommissioning whatever—not one gun nor one ounce of Semtex—by any

of the people, so-called loyalist or republican, who signed up to the Belfast agreement. On the other hand, every single terrorist prisoner has been released back on to the streets. Republican paramilitaries have been elected to the Assembly, as have so-called loyalist paramilitaries. In the case of Sinn Fein, two of them have become Ministers. However, violence has not been fully renounced. Yes, there is a ceasefire, which I have welcomed; it is good news. There is goods news; of course there is.

Mr. Corbyn: Then why does the right hon. Gentleman not say so?

Mr. MacKay: I do, regularly. The hon. Gentleman, who I willingly grant takes considerable interest in the affairs of Northern Ireland, will have read regularly in the newspapers there, in Hansard and elsewhere that my right hon. and hon. Friends and I admit that there is some improvement, in that there is a ceasefire at the moment. However, no ceasefire looks permanent while, first, there is no decommissioning whatever—the Province is awash with illegally held arms and explosives—and, secondly, there is still racketeering, drug dealing and violence from the paramilitaries.
I am being tempted into areas that are beyond the amendment, so it would probably be wise for me to return to the subject.

Mr. Day: The hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) gave the impression that he has not spoken to any of the parents of the victims of terror during the so-called ceasefire. Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that those victims, and especially their parents, have a different view of the situation and may doubt that there is peace, given the terrible loss that they have suffered at the hands of the men of violence?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. This is not a general debate about the situation in Northern Ireland. We have a Lords amendment before us relating to the Bill.

Mr. MacKay: In that case, I had better not respond to my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day). Instead, I shall return to the point that I was about to make on the fundamental reason why we think this is a dangerous, bad, little Bill that should be rejected in total, which it will be if the motion to disagree is rejected in this House.
The Bill is a constitutional outrage and wrong. We are told that it will go ahead only if there are exceptional circumstances. The exceptional circumstances are an appeasement and a sop to Sinn Fein, are not warranted and will be hugely damaging to the process. The Bill will undermine the law-abiding majority and those who represent them. They feel that it is another concession to the men of violence, whereas they have received precious few concessions themselves.

Mr. William Ross: Given the savage but accurate complaints that the right hon. Gentleman is making about the Bill, can we safely assume that a future Conservative Government would repeal it?

Mr. MacKay: Yes.
Other hon. Members want to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and we are painfully aware that we are on a tight timetable, which is regrettable. As I said yesterday, that is due to the Government's incompetence in taking so long to get the Bill back to this place.
I urge the House to reject the motion, because in doing so we shall kill off the Bill, which will be in the interests of the peace process, the peace-loving majority in both communities in Northern Ireland and constitutional justice.

Mr. Lembit Öpik: The right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) is a charming fellow, and I always enjoy listening to his contributions to the debate. He postulated whether, given that our position on various aspects of Northern Ireland policy has evolved, we would do a volte-face on the Bill. It may come as a surprise to him and others to learn that we have decided to maintain the position that we have held for most of this year. I shall explain our reasons for doing so in a moment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) has spoken on the Bill—I think he was our spokesman in January. My noble Friend Lord Smith of Clifton spoke on the subject in the other place. I agree with the right hon. Member for Bracknell that the Government seem to have been rather schizophrenic about the Bill. In January, it was an urgent requirement that we get this legislation through, and no effort was too great to get it on to the statute book. However, it ended up gathering dust on the shelf for 10 months. Although I may have a difference of view on some aspects of the official Opposition's position, I agree with them that it has been difficult to ascertain why such pressure was placed on us to get the Bill through at the beginning of the year, but it has been left until now, 48 hours before the end of the Session, to be finished off.
On the up side, I concur with the right hon. Member for Bracknell that the Minister did a better job of explaining the importance of the Bill than anyone who has previously spoken on the subject on behalf of the Government.
We have been treated to an almost gasping effort to post-rationalise what has at times seemed a rather obscure Bill, but I give the Minister credit for at least presenting a plausible and, I think, fairly practical explanation of the Government's disagreement with the amendment. I must add, however, that had the Government acted a few months earlier, we might not be spending Commons time on the issue now. We might be doing something of more immediate importance, such as liberalising new year's eve licensing hours—but I shall not pursue that now.
The justification for the proposal is, in part, unquestionably symbolic. The right hon. Member for Bracknell questioned whether that and, indeed, the confidence-building element constituted sufficient justification.

Mr. Beggs: Is it not about time that Unionists in Northern Ireland had some confidence-building? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, as this recommendation has absolutely nothing to do with the Belfast agreement, it merely heightens suspicion that only the Lord Himself knows what secret deals have been made between the Government—through the Prime Minister—and Sinn Fein?

What lies before us next? If a proposal that is so unrelated to the Belfast agreement is being introduced at this stage, what can we expect in future?

Mr. Öpik: Although I may vote differently from the hon. Gentleman on this, I think he makes a fair point. The Unionist community has had to put up with a lot during the peace process—as, indeed, have nationalists and republicans. One of the unintended consequences of the faltering fashion in which the Government have handled the Bill may be the creation of an unnecessary nervousness in that community. Nevertheless, I do not consider that to be sufficient justification for rejecting the tenets of the Bill. I realise that certain Conservative Members are concerned about the balance in my argument, but that is to be expected.

Mr. John M. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman mentions balance. Can he identify any reciprocity? What is to be given in return for this largesse? Will the hon. Gentleman, for example, be entitled to sit in the Dail?

Mr. Öpik: I am too busy to sit in the Dail. I am not even a councillor at this stage.
The Minister may wish to correct me, but I understand that the Bill provides for no direct reciprocity—although the vision of the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell standing for seats in the Dail almost makes it worth lobbying Dublin to think again. Who knows? Perhaps one day, if the world evolves, the right hon. Member for Bracknell will be in a position to stand as a potential Taoiseach. If he achieves that high office, I shall certainly expect an invitation to tea.
Let me return to the question asked by the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor). There is, in fact, an element of reciprocity. We may not get seats in the Dail, but, having spoken directly to Irish embassy representatives, I have no doubt that this represents a helpful evolution in the relationship between the House of Commons and Dublin. We should recall the dark days not long ago, in terms of relations between Dublin and Westminster—relations that were so strained that the British-Irish Inter-Parliamentary Body was established with the specific intention of rebuilding a fractured relationship. When we remember those days, only 10 or 15 years ago, we see how far we have progressed.
We should bear in mind that the present strong relationship with Dublin was not just discovered; it was earned. It was built up through various testing actions and legislative decisions—made, I must point out, by the Conservatives as well as the current Government.
Therefore, considering the overall context, the measure is another opportunity for us to strengthen the relationship between ourselves and Dublin. However, Conservative Members are entirely entitled to make a judgment call and to ask whether the development itself is a sufficiently powerful element of the peace process and relationship-building process to be justified.
1.30 pm
Earlier, I intervened on the right hon. Member for Bracknell to ask whether he felt that it was unreasonable for hon. Members also to be Members of the European Parliament. I had forgotten that the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) had ceased to be a Member of


the European Parliament—which she undoubtedly did just in time to avoid the possibility of defecting to the Liberal Democrats, as other Conservative MEPs have seemed prone to doing lately.

Mr. MacKay: MEP singular.

Mr. Öpik: I make it clear that I am not talking about MPs—although no reasonable offer would be refused if the right hon. Gentleman is looking for a new home.
One will unquestionably occasionally have conflicts of interest if one is both an hon. Member and a Member of the European Parliament. Unquestionably, there are two jobs to be done. Although I certainly would not choose to take on those two roles, I would judge that those who have attempted to do so have been reasonably effective. That situation fairly closely parallels the one that we are discussing.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: Am I not right in recalling that the former leader of the Liberal Democrats, who is now the Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament, stood on an Italian Liberal ticket for the European Parliament? Although he was not elected, he might well have been.

Mr. Öpik: Lord Steel did exactly that. He stood abroad, as the hon. Gentleman said, and he did so to make a point. Technically, he could have been an MEP—for Italy, I think—while being an hon. Member.

Mr. John D. Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Öpik: I will do so only briefly, as I do not want to detain the House for too long.

Mr. Taylor: I thank the hon. Gentleman. I must point out to him that the European Parliament is not a sovereign Parliament, and that we are talking about people who can sit in different sovereign Parliaments. The hon. Gentleman should not be dishonest with the House by trying to give the impression that the European Parliament is equivalent to a sovereign national Parliament.

Mr. Öpik: The last thing that I would want to do is to mislead the House. I remind the House that what I actually said was that there are surprisingly close parallels between the matter that we are discussing and the situation of those who work simultaneously as an elected, professional MEP and a Member of Parliament. Hon. Members are perfectly entitled to take a different view on the matter. However, one of the facts persuading me that combining jobs is at least theoretically possible is that similar jobs have been combined before.
The right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) alluded to the important issue of sovereignty. It is unusual that a non-Commonwealth country should be given the status that we are considering. However, for geographical and political reasons, we have a special relationship with the Republic of Ireland. If anything, Unionists should be pleased that, in some way, the link between Dublin and

Westminster is getting closer. Much of the difficulty in Northern Ireland politics has been caused by the fact that that relationship has been strained.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: The hon. Gentleman talks about close links between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. If I am not wholly mistaken in my understanding of history, did not the Republic of Ireland spend the best part of a century and a half trying to get rid of us?

Mr. Öpik: Surely that would be a very good reason for a Unionist official Opposition Member to welcome current developments—which are a certain convergence of thinking between Dublin and Westminster and, more to the point, the normalisation of a relationship that has been strained for a very long time.

Mr. MacKay: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Öpik: I shall give way one last time, but then I shall conclude my remarks.

Mr. MacKay: The hon. Gentleman talks about wanting a close relationship between the British Parliament and the Dail, which I endorse. Is he not forgetting that we have the British-Irish Inter-Parliamentary Body, of whose steering committee I was a founder member? That body works well and effectively in improving relationships between the two Parliaments, but it is not a constitutional matter. That is where it should rest, and it is slightly insulting to that body to suggest that there is not already a good relationship.

Mr. Öpik: That is not a very nice thing to say; intellectually, I am upset. There is no conflict in having the British-Irish Inter-Parliamentary Body, which has done tremendous work in building links between parliamentarians, and the constitutional modification that we are talking about today. This is a matter of evolution and of building links between Governments. Crucially, we must show the general public in Northern Ireland—particularly the nationalist and republican communities—that they are being thought about in this House and that actions are being taken to ensure not that Dublin overruns Northern Ireland or grabs control of the Mace in this Chamber, but that those communities have a legitimate aspiration that is recognised and that they can get representation.
Let me get back to the point. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear.] I am virtually having a conversation with Conservative Front Benchers. Once again, it is an honour to be mentoring the right hon. Member for Bracknell, although this perhaps is not the right place to pursue that.
The right hon. Member for Bracknell regards the measure as a form of appeasement towards the men of violence. He welcomed the ceasefire, but said that nothing had been given by the paramilitaries in exchange for the concessions that we see here. I disagree. The ceasefire, by and large, has been an effective and important step forward. Northern Ireland is closer to a normalised political and military environment now than for many decades and that is encouraging.

Mr. Thompson: The hon. Gentleman speaks about the peace process. Does he recall that since the ceasefire started, the IRA has murdered three people?

Mr. Öpik: The hon. Gentleman is right, but fewer people have been injured and killed in Northern Ireland


than before. It is not acceptable for anyone to suffer as a result of paramilitary violence. However, we are dealing with real-world politics and real lives. I would like to think that the moderate majority in Northern Ireland would agree that the situation is far improved on five or 10 years ago. If hon. Members choose to disagree, they are perfectly entitled to do so, but that flies in the face of the facts.
The Government have handled the matter in an unusual and slightly clumsy way this year. I hope that the official Opposition, Unionists and Liberal Democrats could agree on that. We hope that there will be a degree of contrite acceptance of that when the Minister replies to the debate. [Interruption.] It is a hope, at least. However, this is a confidence-building measure for the Northern Ireland community and for Dublin, and an overdue strengthening of links. It is always a risk to do something differently, but time will tell if it works.
I hope that the Conservatives in the Chamber will feel edified and assisted by the insights that I have provided. I hope that, as a direct consequence of what we have said, we will get a positive response from the Dublin Government. Importantly, I hope that there is a positive response from the SDLP and Sinn Fein, on which there is now great pressure to support the creation of a truly cross-community police service. I hope that they will see that this is another reason why it is unreasonable for them to hold out against encouraging Catholics to apply in significant numbers to the police force in Northern Ireland.

Mr. William Ross: We have listened to the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) expressing yet again the pious hope that making further concessions to thugs and murderers will elicit a favourable response from them. The history of humanity's dealings with such people shows that making concessions to them does not bring a favourable response from the point of view of the civilised but, rather, encourages them in their evildoing. Given what has happened during the past few weeks in relation to the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill and to the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill, which we discussed yesterday, one can also see that such concessions do not work with the IRA. The IRA simply asks for more and more and gives nothing—and that is what it will keep on doing.
As the Under-Secretary pointed out when he opened the debate, we are dealing with a Bill that was beheaded in the House of Lords. In its present form, it is nothing but a dead carcase. In my view, it would be best to leave it that way, but the House is trying to resurrect it and give it back the life that was removed in the other place.
The Bill appeared nearly a year ago. It had its First Reading on 21 December last year, within a day or two of the House rising for the Christmas recess and when no one was paying much attention to what was being produced. I have not had time to check when the House rose for Christmas last year, but it could have been as late as 22 or 23 December—certainly no later. That recess, therefore, came only a day or two after the Bill was introduced. It was a time of year when people did not have time to assess the Bill. No one was paying much attention to such things, and First Readings do not matter all that much, as we all know—they are a purely formal procedure—so no one took much notice.
Second Reading took place on 24 January. It was followed by the events that kept us up for a long and pleasant evening in the House—one of the longest sittings in the Chamber for some time. I look back on that night with pleasure, because it illustrated once more that if one talks and talks in this place, one will eventually start to get through to those who, up to that point, have taken no interest in an issue. Eventually, people will start to say, "Some people think this is serious. Some people believe this should be discussed and that it is worth a second look to see whether we have got it right." That is why the Chamber is so important to the legislative process of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Day: The hon. Gentleman is quite right, but if he wants to exercise that right again, he had better do it tonight. From next week the Government will have successfully neutered this place with their so-called modernisation programme.

Mr. Ross: I regret that the hon. Gentleman said that, because he may well have alerted Mr. Deputy Speaker to the fact that I was beginning to stray beyond the confines of the debate. However, the point that I was making was that the neutering of the House does grave damage to the legislative process and to democracy in the United Kingdom. That should be explained, because this Chamber is where each Minister has to justify every proposal put forward, and the decisions on modernisation will prevent them from doing so in future. I hope that that is another measure that the Conservatives will reverse whenever they get the chance. [Interruption.] That is the trouble—Governments pass legislation diminishing the power of this House which, when their turn comes to sit on the Opposition Benches, they regret doing. I hope that for the first time in a very long time the Conservative party will reverse the mistakes that have been made in this respect by the Government.
1.45 pm
The Bill subsequently disappeared, and reappeared on 28 July—again, just before the House went up for the summer recess. Why was the Bill away for so long? Had the Government all at once realised that something was seriously wrong, that no benefit was to be derived from the Bill and that they might as well bury it and forget about it? The fact that it came back gives rise yet again to two questions: who wants this Bill and why do they want it? There are many objections to the Bill, as we all know.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. The hon. Gentleman acknowledged earlier that he was straying rather wide of the amendment, and he is now going down another byway. I should be grateful if he would come back to the amendment before the House.

Mr. Ross: It is clear that people in the other place had very serious objections to the clause, which is why they decided to remove it. They said to themselves that one cannot serve two masters. As the good book tells us, we either hate the one and love the other, or despise the one and cleave to the other. If the first of those two elements holds true, as I believe it does, we will tell people that they can sit in two separate sovereign legislatures with two totally different views of what should happen


constitutionally to the Province of Northern Ireland. This is a constitutional Bill, which is why I, and others like me, object to it.

Mr. John M. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman left a very interesting question up in the air a moment ago when he asked who wanted the Bill. With his experience and knowledge of Northern Ireland affairs, can he identify even one political party with any enthusiasm for the Bill?

Mr. Ross: There is one political party with enthusiasm for it—Sinn Fein, which is inextricably linked to terrorism. I will come back to that central question. I was merely putting down a marker so that people could have time to consider it; I was going to come back to it later. We have some time yet—about another two hours. No one should be in any hurry in discussing these matters; we have the time and should examine them in detail.
I do not think that the conflict of interests enters into Sinn Fein-IRA's view of the Bill. So far as they are concerned, there is no conflict of interests. They are united Irelanders pure and simple; they treat the Bill as a means to an end, particularly this element of it.
Everyone knows that it is impossible to be in two places at the same time, but a person can, as we know from earlier exchanges, serve on a council, in Parliament and on a European body. As that person is always representing the same national interest and the people of a particular area—be it of this kingdom or of another—in national assemblies, local assemblies or the supranational assembly, however, there is no conflict of interest at that level. But the possibility of such a conflict is precisely why we have a rule regarding membership of this House which says that no person can represent two constituencies at the same time.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Will the hon. Gentleman consider that people who wish to sit in any of those institutions, whether local authorities or Parliament, have to swear an oath of allegiance to this country, making it plain that they are acting on behalf of and in the interests of this country and not on behalf of a foreign Government?

Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman pre-empts me. I was coming to that matter. A person cannot represent two constituencies here because it would diminish the level of representation overall for the nation and the House and because there would be a conflict of interest. One can stand for election and be elected to two constituencies, but one must give one of them up immediately. One cannot represent both in this place and everyone knows that. I do not know when that happened last, but I assume that it has happened at some time in our long history.

Mr. Corbyn: Gladstone.

Mr. Ross: Well—

Mr. John M. Taylor: I can answer that question. The last time that anyone was returned to two seats in this

place—of course, he would have had to relinquish one—was in 1910, when a Mr. O'Brien was returned for Cork and West Cork.

Mr. Ross: I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department is not intending to follow his namesake's attitude and seek two seats at the same time. That is beyond even his vaulting ambition.

Mr. Corbyn: The hon. Gentleman is slightly over-egging the pudding. One can be elected to a devolved Parliament in Scotland or the Assembly in Northern Ireland or Wales and represent an entirely different constituency to the one that one represents in Westminster. Someone could represent an English constituency but also sit in the Scottish Parliament. Such a person would have two constituencies.

Mr. Ross: Yes, but that does not relate to my argument.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: In theory, yes; in practice, no.

Mr. Ross: An objection is being raised. Even if the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) is correct, as I said, such a person would still be representing the same nation and national interest.
I was turned off my course by the recent exchanges. I was pointing out that one cannot represent two constituencies because there may be a conflict of interest. The conflict becomes even stronger if one is representing two different constituencies in two sovereign nations' Parliaments. That is a totally different ball game. The plain truth is—

Mr. Öpik: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman's flow again. Presumably, he will confirm that, following his logic, he would want the regulation that permits people from other member states of the Commonwealth to stand for election to this House to be repealed for the same reasons.

Mr. Ross: The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), who is no longer in his place, mentioned that matter. He made a powerful case for following the course of action that the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) puts before the House. I cannot see any good reason for permitting a citizen of a nation that does not share our interests—our needs—to sit in this House. There is bound to be a conflict of interests. The process that allows them to do so is based on an archaic law. That law should be swept away. It serves no useful purpose since no one has taken up that opportunity. In the past, it would have been physically impossible for a Member of the Canadian or the Australian Parliament also to serve in this place. Today, with Concorde, it is theoretically possible but still not practicable.

Mr. Corbyn: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify his position and that of his party? If he opposes Commonwealth Members standing for election to the British Parliament, is he also opposed to Commonwealth citizens being elected to this Parliament or Commonwealth nationals voting in British elections?

Mr. Ross: That is a totally different issue; it is a red herring. If a Commonwealth citizen lives in this nation,


is a taxpayer here and is on the electoral register, I have no objection. I recall that Australian and New Zealand citizens—the most recent was Mr. Gould—sat in this place; there may be Canadian or Australian Members at present. If they live in this country and give it their allegiance—

Mr. John M. Taylor: If they take the oath.

Mr. Ross: Indeed. If they fulfil the normal obligations, that is all right with me; no one could seriously object to that.
No reciprocal arrangement has been made with the Dail; it would need to amend its constitution. This type of cross-over sitting would be available only to Northern Ireland Members of Parliament, not to Members of Parliament from Great Britain—in that sense, it is strictly a one-way street.
When I objected that the matter was not in the agreement, the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland gave an extremely weak answer; he said that it was consistent with the agreement. In other words, the agreement is a take-your-pick. There is a row of hooks on the wall, with the agreement hanging on one of them. We can hang anything on that hook, as long as we tell the House that it is consistent with the agreement—that it falls within the general theory of the agreement. That is no way to take decisions; something must be in or out. There is no good reason to accept this provision just because someone's strictly subjective view is that it is consistent with the agreement.

Mr. Day: The hon. Gentleman is correct to point out that some parties have managed to hang whatever they want on the agreement. However, his experience will show him that parties such as his, which possess no weapons and condemn those who hold weapons, and which do not threaten the Government with weapons, do not benefit from any attachments to the agreement. Those who threaten receive all the benefits.

Mr. Ross: I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman; he correctly expresses my view of the matter.
There is no consensus for this constitutional reform. No one in Britain asked for it. Apart from Sinn Fein, no one asked for it in Ireland. Indeed, in the other place, Lord Fitt said that none of the major parties in the Irish Republic were in favour of the reform. He had asked them; they were not in favour, because if there were reciprocal arrangements, a whole can of worms would be opened. They would have to change their constitution. They would have to hold a referendum and they were not prepared to go down that road.
I return to my question. Who asked for the reform? Who wants it? Who is pushing the Government? Who is demanding this legislation? The only people who seem to want it are Sinn Fein-IRA—that inextricably linked terrorist organisation cum political party. This attempt to reinstate in the Bill a deleted provision is on all fours with what happened during yesterday's proceedings on the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill—only Sinn Fein-IRA benefited from an exemption clause on financial matters in that long and complex measure.
Of course, the Under-Secretary will tell us that the matter is merely one of perception. However, as he is well aware, in politics, perception—if not all—plays a large

part in people's understanding of the law. The perception in Northern Ireland, and of any sensible person who has examined this matter in detail, is that the Bill was produced at the behest of Sinn Fein-IRA and for no other reason.
Why do Sinn Fein-IRA want this provision? Because they want to sit in the Dail and in the Assembly, and to be non-attending Members of this House. They can then claim that they represent their electorate on an all-Ireland basis in an all-Ireland body. That is fully in keeping with the changes to articles 2 and 3 of the Irish Republic's constitution, in which it shifted its claim from territory to people, saying that it hoped to draw together all the people of Ireland who can claim its citizenship. What the 44 million people in north America think of that is a matter of conjecture, but we need not go down that road today.
2 pm
Let us consider what might happen in future, given the current political shifts in Northern Ireland. We cannot pass a Bill without considering the consequences, for those who will the means also will the consequences. We cannot simply say, "Oh, we passed the Bill, but we don't worry about the consequences." Everything that we do in the House has a consequence for citizens—whether a few or many—given Sinn Fein's rampaging electoral success in Northern Ireland.
It is clear to those of us who live there—perhaps it is obscured as yet from those who live elsewhere in the United Kingdom—that there is a strong possibility that Sinn Fein-IRA will replace the SDLP and some of its Members in the House. If that happens and IRA members are elected to the Dail, the whole concept of the Union and the consent principle embodied in the agreement will be undermined, hollowed out and destroyed. That is what the IRA is about.
The IRA is perhaps rather cleverer than some hon. Members seem to think. I have never thought that there was such a thing as mindless violence in the IRA's lexicon. Its violence is always for an end and it is always carefully thought through, and the Bill is part and parcel of its attack on the integrity, territory and constitution of the United Kingdom. In all truth, unless the Minister sees it in that light and understands it, he does not know what he is trying to push through the House today.
Why have the Government given the IRA those consequences? What threats were made or implied—bombs in London, Manchester and Birmingham? The capability exists; the IRA has the weapons, explosives and people. It has spent the past two or three years recruiting, and shifting weapons and explosives. We are facing an even more sophisticated and dangerous organisation than that which existed several years ago. Its troops are on the street. Far worse, its sleepers are on the street, and they are over here.
Is that body of people—Sinn Fein-IRA—worthy of the concession? The Minister has told us that they must meet the obligations involved in sitting here—they do not; they will not. They do not want to sit here. They have a totally different agenda. They are simply using the House as the excuse to claim that they are the representatives of a people in an all-Ireland republic. No doubt, there are warm relationships with Dublin, but at what price have


they been bought? What is the warmth of the relationship between Sinn Fein-IRA and the Government of this country?
The Government maintain that the ceasefire is intact so long as the terrorist leaders do not say that it is over or do not take part in active attacks—but that means active attacks on the security forces. Murders of civilians, especially of those of the same denomination and religious community, are dismissed as mere housekeeping. Neither I nor the victims and their families think that that is housekeeping: it is murder, but some folk in the House sanitise it using the phrase "killings in Northern Ireland." Killings? They are cold-blooded, ruthless murders in furtherance of Sinn Fein-IRA's political and constitutional objectives and of undermining normal, decent society in Northern Ireland, which in many parts of the Province such as the inner cities, has been replaced by mafia rule.
Numerous concessions were made on the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000. The Dublin Government, the SDLP and leaders of the Roman Catholic Church pocketed them, but they were not considered to be enough. The concessions made yesterday were not enough. Further changes will be demanded of the police, and the special branch will have to be broken up. Local policing boards will have to be put in place and that will give greater power to Sinn Fein-IRA. It is all part and parcel of the Government's capitulation to terror, murder and violence. The people of Northern Ireland pay the primary price now, but the lessons for the rest of the United Kingdom are real and dreadful.
Honour in this place demands integrity over democratic structures. Our national interests have to be protected and we should reject the Government's attempt to reinstate the Bill. We have got to forget about sordid little deals with thugs and murderers for political gain. We should stop being afraid of what the IRA might do to us and concentrate on what we can do to the IRA to destroy it as a terrorist, military and political force. Only when that evil organisation is destroyed—it can be destroyed only by being exposed—will we achieve real peace. That is why the Bill is wrong: it helps, rather than diminishes, the IRA's influence.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross). Not only do I agree with virtually everything that he said, but I had the great pleasure of being with him all night on 25 and 26 January when he was able to give us the benefit of his very sound advice. I know that Ministers particularly appreciated that.
I place on record my apologies to the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for not being present when he opened the debate. Unfortunately, one cannot be in two places at once, and I was doing a press conference with Baroness Young in the other place on the age of consent, another measure that the Government have sought to railroad through Parliament. The Under-Secretary and I shared the night together on 25 and 26 January—if I can use that expression without it being misunderstood.
The House should remind itself of what happened on that occasion. The Minister rightly reminded us that not many Members voted against the Bill on Second Reading,

which took place the day before the Committee stage. I was one of them, because some of us had the suspicion that the Government were trying to smuggle through a measure that they described as modest. They suggested that there was nothing of great moment in the Bill and that we could all be perfectly comfortable with it.
I, along with some of my right hon. and hon. Friends, thought that there was something odd about the Bill. It was clearly designed to extend to Members of the Irish Parliament the same rights enjoyed by Members of Commonwealth legislatures. It is a bizarre idea that, given all the struggles of the 19th century, citizens of the Irish Republic should want once more to be part of our Commonwealth, or empire as it formerly was.
Given the Prime Minister's obsession with the word "modernisation", it occurred to me that, instead of repealing the legislation that to this day allows Members of Commonwealth legislatures, such as those in Kenya, Zimbabwe and Nigeria, to sit in this place, he wanted to extend the right to sit in the House. However, that right was being extended not to another Commonwealth country or to one, such as South Africa, that had been a member and was then readmitted, but to a country that had emphatically renounced any idea of wishing to be part of the Commonwealth of which Her Majesty the Queen is the head. It struck me as astonishing that, far from seeking to repeal the measure in the name of his pet obsession of modernisation, the Prime Minister actually wanted to use it. I tried to discover why. The reason is that the Government found a purpose for the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975. We began to wonder whether that purpose was legitimate or whether there was something more sinister behind it.
There is no doubt that when we discussed the Bill in a Committee of the whole House, some of us were concerned about concessions being made to Sinn Fein. We tried to press the point. In my intervention on my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), I pointed out that the Minister said on Second Reading:
The Bill is not part of the Good Friday agreement, but it is consistent with it. Separate development of direct interparliamentary links between the various legislatures was envisaged at the time of the Good Friday agreement.
The hon. Gentleman sought to give us the impression that the Bill is not part of the Good Friday agreement, no part of a wider deal and no part of a side agreement, but that it merely reflects the overall feeling of good will between the United Kingdom and the Government of the Republic of Ireland and others. He suggested that we were wide of the mark to think that the measure was being introduced at the behest of Sinn Fein.
We pressed on through the evening to try to discover whether that was the case and I referred to something else that the Minister said on Second Reading. He sought to allay our fears by saying:
It is time to build a sounder basis to our institutional relationships and to provide a basis on which we can proceed, as two islands just off the mainland of Europe, with many common links, historical and otherwise, between the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic—a basis for ensuring that those closer links are given some institutional background. I believe that that explains this fairly modest Bill.
Any fears that we had about the involvement of Sinn Fein were smoothed away by an extremely suave Minister, but we were having none of it and kept pressing the Government. It was not my intention or, I venture to


suggest, that of other hon. Members to keep the House up all night. We wanted to drive at the truth and get an answer to the question posed by the hon. Member for East Londonderry—what was the purpose of the Bill? We wanted to know why it was so urgent that we had to have Second Reading one day and remaining stages the following day. The Minister said that it was not urgent, but the Government's actions spoke louder than words, and we were not satisfied that we were getting truthful answers.

Mr. John M. Taylor: Is not the claim to urgency the most bogus claim of all? We have had since 1949 to put the matter right, if we had wanted to.

Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend makes a telling point and is entirely right—we could have acted earlier.
There was a great discrepancy between the Minister saying that the Bill was not urgent and the business managers pressing it through two days on the trot. The Government's actions were at variance with the Minister's assurances, and assurances about the origins and purposes of the Bill were at variance with what we were beginning to understand about it. We were pleased that we pressed the Government through the night because eventually, at about 2.40 am, the Minister told us what the Bill was about. He said:
I dealt with the question of whom we discussed the matter with on Second Reading, but let me make it clear that representations have been received from, and discussions held with, the leader of the Ulster Unionist party and the Irish Government. I understand that representations have been received by the Government from Sinn Fein. However, let me make it clear that the Government are not trading on issues. As always, representations are judged on their merits, and I believe that the measures in the Bill are justified on their own merits. The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone will be aware also of the issue in relation to clause 2 and the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble).
I am not quite sure what the last few words mean.
In the early hours of the morning—one good reason why we should not suspend our proceedings at 10 o'clock—we finally extracted an admission from the Minister, who I believe is an honourable man, that representations had been received from Sinn Fein, although the measure is not part of the Belfast agreement. His admission led us to the justifiable conclusion that there was more to the Bill than simply trying to create a more formal institutional relationship between this Parliament and the Parliament of the Irish Republic. Indeed, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) said, we began to believe that the Bill was a further appeasement of the men of violence.
The Bill is not on its own: it is part of a raft of measures, one of which—on the financing of political parties—was debated yesterday. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) made a powerful point when he said that the Scottish National party will be committing a criminal offence if it raises money from expatriate Scots to fund its campaigns in Scotland, but that Sinn Fein will not be committing a criminal offence if it raises money for its party political purposes from Noraid and the United States. Special treatment will be given to Sinn Fein and, indeed, to other parties in Northern Ireland.

Mr. George Howarth: I suspect that you may rule me out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but the exclusion in the

Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill for parties in Northern Ireland is not at the request of Sinn Fein. It arose from discussions that we had with all political parties in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: I am grateful to the Minister for providing the House with that information. He made that point yesterday, and the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) disputed it. I understand that the Minister had discussions with other members of his party, who said that they would not make the issue one on which they would oppose.
Nevertheless, the principal beneficiaries are unlikely to be ex-patriot Unionists. Given funding as it is generally understood in this country and the massive fundraising operations in the United States, the real beneficiary is much more likely to be Sinn Fein. I make the point only in passing in order to make my overall point about the Bill. It is one of a number of measures that form a clear pattern of advantage to those who were men of violence and to their political supporters.
As the Member of Parliament for Aldershot, formerly the home of the Parachute Regiment, I am bound to say that my constituents are in trepidation of being called before the wretched Saville inquiry in Londonderry to answer for what happened nearly 30 years ago. That inquiry was set up entirely at the behest of the Prime Minister for one purpose only: to appease republican sentiment. We therefore begin to see this Bill not as a nice, warm and cuddly measure to forge closer links between the Irish Parliament and the United Kingdom Parliament, but as part of a raft of measures and actions that add up to give Unionists cause for anxiety and republicans cause for celebration.

Dr. Godman: The hon. Gentleman talks about "that wretched inquiry". May I point out that many of us believe that its object is to get to the truth of what happened on that terrible day?

Mr. Gerald Howarth: I do not disbelieve the hon. Gentleman in his desire. Nor do I disbelieve the families of those who died in their desire, as they see it, to get to the truth. I merely say to the hon. Gentleman that from that inquiry can come no winners whatever. There will be no victors; there will merely be grief, the opening up of old and deep wounds and a postponement of reconciliation. It is scandalous that so much British public money is being expended on an inquiry that has held itself in a thoroughly biased—and I would say disreputable—fashion.
The inquiry refused the repeated requests of my constituents—men who had served their country and put their lives on the line and who are now civilians and have no protection—to claim anonymity when giving evidence. They do not have their network of paramilitaries and others to support them. I do not want to labour the point or drift away from the subject of the Bill; I was responding to the hon. Gentleman and making it clear that I do not doubt his sincerity on the issue. However, I am bound to put on record my reservations, and the fact that I see all these matters forming a pattern.
The hon. Member for East Londonderry mentioned reciprocity. It was also dealt with in Committee, and what


was said was interesting. In answer to a point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, the Minister said:
We ban Members of the Irish Parliament from being Members of this House. There is no provision in Irish law similar to section 1(1)(e) of the House of Commons Disqualifications Act 1975. Members of the House of Commons and the House of Lords—and, indeed, Members of the legislatures of other countries—are not disqualified on that account from membership of the Irish Parliament. To that extent, the reciprocity sought by the amendment already exists. Members of the Irish Parliament are, however, required to be Irish nationals.—[Official Report, 25 January 2000; Vol. 343, c. 199-225, 305-09.]
Therefore, there is clearly not reciprocity. Unless they are an Irish national, somebody sitting in this House will not qualify to be a Member of the Dail, so it is a one-way street, as the hon. Member for East Londonderry said.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to conflict of interest. Again, it is perfectly clear that one cannot on the one hand swear allegiance to the United Kingdom Crown and advance the causes and interests of this country, while at the same time being a Member of a Parliament of another sovereign country, advancing its causes and interests. There will be cases of clear conflict of interest. They are two different countries.

Mr. Öpik: I ask the hon. Gentleman the question that I have already asked: is it his party's policy to repeal the ruling that allows members of other state legislatures in the Commonwealth to stand for this House?

Mr. Howarth: That is a different matter altogether. As the hon. Gentleman will observe, I am not on the Front Bench. I am a bit more of a free agent. However, I understand that, had I been on the Front Bench, I would have been able to answer in the affirmative. I hope that that helps him. The ability of members of legislatures on the African continent or, indeed, of Australia and New Zealand, to be Members of this House at the same time appears to be an anachronism—but that is another issue.
As I said earlier, the Minister said that this was a modest Bill. I disagree fundamentally; it is not a modest Bill. It reinforces the justifiable fears of Unionists. Even if it is not specifically a squalid act of appeasement of Sinn Fein, its effect is to confer a unique, unreciprocated benefit on those who resent the Union between Ulster and Great Britain and refuse to swear allegiance to the Crown, who may even have personally been involved in taking the lives of those who served the Crown in Her Majesty's forces.
I see in the ten-minute Bill of the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), to which he spoke on 14 November and which I successfully opposed, part of the pattern. Once the oath of allegiance is removed, it is much easier for people who do not owe allegiance to this country to sit as cuckoos in the nest in this Parliament but serve another country and its interests.

Mr. Corbyn: The endearing quality of the hon. Members for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) and for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) is their obsession with a byzantine world of conspiracy theories. They imagine that the world is some massive conspiracy designed to achieve I am not sure what.
Both hon. Members today completely lacked any vision of the future that they want for Northern Ireland. They did not at any stage say that they endorse the peace process. Neither said that he endorsed the Good Friday agreement, and neither paid any compliment for three years of ceasefire, the Northern Ireland Act 1998 or the setting up of a devolved Assembly—or for the fact that there is no longer the same level of death, mayhem and destruction in Northern Ireland. I accept that all is not perfect, but there must be some idea of where we go from here. The hon. Gentlemen's proposal appears to be to stick their head in the sand, put the clock back and ignore the massive political steps that Unionists, republicans and nationalist movements in Northern Ireland have taken, and to return to what—another 20 years of 20,000 British troops in Northern Ireland and prisons such as the Maze? That is the alternative. If the hon. Member for Aldershot is serious about getting peace in Northern Ireland, he should look at the achievements of the Good Friday agreement and the enormous political moves of leaders of both communities in Northern Ireland to endorse that process.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. I am entirely happy to put on record my support for the brave decision made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) who initiated the whole business. At the time, I thought that that decision was both brave and right. However, it is a different matter to suggest that the Bill is, intrinsically, a key component in continuing the peace process. It is not in the interests of the peace process, but I am in favour of the ceasefire continuing and the Belfast agreement lasting.

Mr. Corbyn: I am relieved to hear those comments. This is not the only issue—or even the most central one—in the Good Friday agreement or other discussions. The hon. Gentleman must concede that it is a building block which, we hope, will contribute to a future in Northern Ireland that is free from violence and full of political engagement by all parties.

Mr. Thompson: Is it not a threat to say that, if things do not go that the way they ought to, or if they do not go the way the Government or Sinn Fein think they should go, there will be a return to violence? Is that not political blackmail?

Mr. Corbyn: I am not in a position to threaten anybody with anything. However, unless one builds on the progress that has been made and acknowledges the enormous political jumps made by the SDLP, Sinn Fein and the Ulster Unionists to get to the present situation—where there are people with whom to talk and negotiate—the mayhem of loyalist violence that we have seen in the past six months and breakaway republican organisations will prevail. One cannot negotiate with those organisations because there is no one with whom to negotiate, so there will be a downward spiral to a very nasty future indeed.
That is not meant to be a threat, as I want to see peace in Northern Ireland and understand that the principles behind the original Hume-Adams accord and decisions by the Government led by the right hon. Member for


Huntingdon (Mr. Major) and the current Government led to a recognition of the traditions of both communities in Northern Ireland. Surely, that is the only way forward. The hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) shakes his head. He is free to do that and, doubtless, he will address us later on the subject. Surely, we should have a vision of the future rather than looking back endlessly at how we can unpick what has happened in the past three years. That is the only point that I want to make on that score, as I am in danger of being ruled out of order.
If one looks carefully at the way in which disqualification legislation applies in the House and at the history of Ireland, one can see that the Bill is logical as it puts Ireland on the same footing as Commonwealth citizens. That equivalence has always been in evidence in many different ways. For example, Irish citizens can vote in British elections, as can Commonwealth citizens, and are afforded the same political rights. I recall a time in the early 1980s when the Government led by Margaret Thatcher seemed to be moving in the direction of removing the vote from Irish citizens living in Britain. Fortunately, however, they backed off from that after a big campaign by the Irish community. However, the Bill is a logical extension of the provision that already applies to Commonwealth countries, which gives non-British nationals the right to vote in British elections and also extends to Irish nationals.

Mr. Robert McCartney: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Republic of Ireland deliberately removed itself from the Commonwealth and is an independent sovereign state. But for an accident of proximity, it would be entirely different from any other Commonwealth country.

Mr. Corbyn: The words "accident" and "proximity" are a rather unusual description of Britain's involvement in Northern Ireland and Ireland over the past 800 years. Other countries, such as South Africa and Pakistan, have been removed or have removed themselves from the Commonwealth, but, despite that, their nationals kept the right to vote in British elections. When those countries later returned to the Commonwealth, their nationals still had that right. The logic for the Bill is therefore plain.
The hon. and learned Member for North Down knows perfectly well that there is a free movement of people between Britain and Ireland and that passports are not necessarily required for travel to the Republic from Britain. He also knows that Irish people have civic rights in this country, as enshrined in the Ireland Act 1949 and subsequent legislation.
Earlier, we discussed the European parallel. As Opposition Members see it, the idea of sovereignty in parliamentary elections is clearly at variance with European law. It is possible to be a candidate or a Member of the European Parliament representing a constituency in any member state. I would not recommend this but, as I said earlier, someone could be in the unusual position of representing an English constituency in the Westminster Parliament, be resident in Scotland—and therefore eligible to be a Member of the Scottish Parliament—and, as a European resident, stand in Finland for election to

the European Parliament. That could mean a lot of travelling and lead to a complicated life, but it is legally possible. The idea that the Bill is an enormous step in the dark is nonsense, because it embodies the logic of what already goes on.
Opposition Members say that if we pass the Bill, we will be seen to have thrown another bone to Sinn Fein and the republican movement. Some people see the Northern Ireland peace process as a matter of bones and carrots in which one gives a carrot to one party and throws a bone to the next. I am not sure what it is like to digest bones and carrots at the same time but I suppose it is possible, although very dangerous if one is a vegetarian animal.
The disappointments that have recently been rewarded with the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 have been noted throughout Northern Ireland. Many of us strongly supported the Patten proposals and hoped that they would be accepted in their entirety, but they were not. Likewise, the Army board's perverse decision to reinstate Guardsmen Fisher and Wright and not suspend them, despite their conviction for a dreadful killing, does not play well. Such things make it more difficult to persuade people that the peace process and the process of reconciliation are genuine, but it is important that we try to do that.
The Good Friday agreement is the best hope around, and the Bill is part of that process. I hope that the House will reject Lords amendment No. 1, which would effectively eliminate the whole Bill. I agree with the Opposition spokesman that deleting clause 1 would destroy the Bill. We should recognise that the Bill is putting right an anomaly in the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and the process by which the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) was removed from office in 1982, following the loss of a case in which he was deemed to be a Member of Assemblies in two different countries.
We are putting right a legal wrong and demonstrating that the peace process is working. We are demonstrating the value of the Good Friday agreement and recognising that the traditions of both communities in Northern Ireland and the island of Ireland are alive and well. I hope that the House rejects the Lords amendment and reinserts clause 1 into the Bill.

Mr. Thompson: I am happy to speak in support of the Lords amendment, as I believe that clause 1 should be removed. When the Bill went to the other place, I am sure that their lordships were as surprised as us, and that they, too, asked, "What on earth is this Bill about?" The Bill is called the Disqualifications Bill, but that is a misnomer. It would have been better to call it a qualification Bill, as it seems to qualify members of Sinn Fein to be Members of the Dail, Members of Parliament and Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly. We, of course, were asking ourselves what it was all about. We then discovered that it was possible for members of a Parliament that belonged to the Commonwealth to be Members of the United Kingdom Parliament. I suspect that few Members of the House knew that that was possible. We were told that no one has ever taken advantage of that legislation, which must exist somewhere, although I have not yet discovered


where. We were then presented with the idea that the right should be extended to citizens of the Republic of Ireland, so that they, too, could sit in this Parliament.
I think that the Government have not been too happy about the Bill. First Reading occurred on 21 December 1999, the day on which the House rose for Christmas. That did not suggest that the Government were too keen to make the Bill known to anybody at that time. After long debate in Committee and on Third Reading, we all thought that the Bill had been buried and that we would never see it again. Every time the Government introduce a Bill on Northern Ireland, they always speak about the necessity for speed, say that everything must be done as quickly as possible and present the situation as an emergency. That argument was also used for this Bill. When it came to its passage, however, it took the Government 10 months to introduce the Bill in the House of Lords. We all thought that it had been buried and forgotten, but, lo and behold, it has re-emerged.
Thankfully, the other place, in its wisdom, saw through the dangers and difficulties of the Bill and recommended the removal of clause 1. I support that proposal entirely, as it would kill the Bill. We all hope that it will be killed and buried, and that we will never see it again.
When the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), introduced the Bill, it was clear that he was not too sure what it was about. Perhaps he does not fully understand its significance even now. I am not too sure that the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who is currently present, is happy with it either. The uneasiness of his demeanour certainly seems to suggest that that is the case.
When a Bill is put before the House, we must ask what evil it will remedy, what disadvantage it will remove and what fault it will correct. No one has suffered from any fault or disadvantage because the measures in the Bill were not in place.

Mr. Corbyn: Before the hon. Gentleman exhausts himself and his arguments against the Bill, I have a question. Does he realise that if it is enacted, he will have the opportunity to stand for election as a Member of the Dail?

Mr. Thompson: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I have no desire to sit in the Parliament of the Irish Republic. I am proud and happy to sit in this Parliament, and I have no desire to sit in the Parliament of a foreign country.
When the Bill was presented to the House of Lords, their lordships immediately asked what it was about. They then asked who had asked for its introduction. It is absolutely clear that Sinn Fein is asking for the Bill, as it will benefit most from it. As we all know, Sinn Fein is to fight the next Dail election and hopes to secure Members in the Dail. It currently has one such Member, but more prominent party members might hope to win seats in the Dail at the next election, so that Sinn Fein will be able to say "We are now an all-Ireland party that represents both parts of Ireland." That is why the Bill has been introduced—to satisfy Sinn Fein and it alone.

Mr. Beggs: Does my hon. Friend agree that there could be a further motive? By gaining even a few seats in the Dail, does not that small party hope to be the tail that wags the dog of whichever major party is in government?

Mr. Thompson: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. Of course, that is one of the aims of Sinn Fein. The proportional representation system of the Parliament of the Republic of Ireland means that there is always a close contest in which the small parties often control which party gets into government. Then, when they are in government with the party that takes power, they have a large say in what goes on. Sinn Fein therefore hopes that it will win enough seats at the next election for the Dail to enable it to decide which party goes into power and to be part of that Government. In such circumstances, it might even be possible for a Sinn Fein Minister to be included in the Government of the Republic of Ireland. That would build Sinn Fein up and help to give it an all-Ireland image, enabling it to boast that it is the only republican party that can have that role. Of course, that would be to its advantage.
We must ask not only who wants the Bill—it is obviously Sinn Fein—but the next question, which has also been asked by their lordships. Who made the concession on the Bill? We have been trying to get the Government to tell us who asked for it and who conceded it. It has become fairly obvious that the Prime Minister conceded to Sinn Fein and gave it the Bill. It seems to be his baby, although I am not sure whether his view is reflected throughout the Government. It does not seem to be reflected among Labour Back Benchers, as very few of them turn up to defend the Bill. Indeed, I think that only one Back Bencher has so far been prepared to defend it. Perhaps the others will come to aid the Government in their difficulties.
The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department and the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who is currently on the Front Bench, might not be all that happy with the Bill, but they must listen to their master's voice and do what he says. That is why the measure has been brought back to the House and why the Government are attempting to redress the difficulties that they encountered in the House of Lords.
Another aspect of the Bill has never been satisfactorily tackled. We were told that the Bill was intended to bring us into parity with the rest of the United Kingdom. When the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department introduced the Bill, he said:
The Bill ends the prohibition against members of the Irish legislature—that is, of both the Dail and the Senate—being a member of any legislature in the United Kingdom. They will therefore be permitted to be Members of this House, the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly.—[Official Report, 24 January 2000; Vol. 343, c. 25.]
As I understand it, the Bill allows members of the Dail and the Senate to sit in this House and in the Northern Ireland Assembly. However, I do not think that it enables Members of the Dail and the Senate to sit in the Scottish Parliament or the Welsh Assembly. When the Minister introduced the Bill, he said that that was the case, but I think that I am right in saying that the Bill does not produce that result. Perhaps the Under-Secretary will clarify that when he replies.
The Bill was introduced more than a year ago, and even if we were to accept that it was relevant then and it was given as a sop to Sinn Fein and the IRA, during the past year events have shown that they should have no concessions at all. During the Bill's passage, the IRA has committed three murders, it has refused to fulfil its obligations under the Belfast agreement, and, more important, it has just said that it will not support the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 or sit on the policing board and that it will actively encourage young nationalists not to support the new force.
It is clear that Sinn Fein and the IRA demand concession after concession, but when they are given a concession they do not reciprocate. They simply forget their obligations and continue to ask for more concessions from the Government. Because of the nature of Sinn Fein-IRA, with their massive army, a massive number of weapons and their capability to wreak havoc not only in Northern Ireland but on the mainland, there is always the temptation for the Government to concede more and more to them in order to keep them quiet and prevent them from using their arms. That is always to the disadvantage of those of us who are democrats and who wish to move forward in a democratic fashion, rather than through the use of illegal weapons.
I come now to how the Bill relates to the Commonwealth, the EU and America. We are told that the Bill was introduced because of our unique relationship with the Republic of Ireland. I am not sure that it has always been that good. We often have rows with the Irish Government and relations are frequently anything but good. At times they are cold and frosty. No one could say that the present relationship between the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Foreign Minister of the Republic of Ireland, Mr. Cowen, is all that warm. We are told by the press that it is most frosty. We do not always have an excellent relationship with the Republic of Ireland. But that is the reason given for the introduction of the Bill.
If that were the case, surely we should extend the Bill to America, because the United Kingdom has a special relationship with America. We speak the same language. Many Americans originally came from the mainland and from Northern Ireland. If the republican movement was sincere, it would be asking for America to be included, because it has many friends in America. The American President has visited Northern Ireland twice during his eight-year term and he is coming back again, showing what a close relationship he has not only with Northern Ireland but with the rest of the United Kingdom. Surely if a special relationship exists between the Republic of Ireland and this Parliament, it would be logical, sensible and desirable to extend the measure to our friends in America, or those who were our citizens and friends years ago.
We are all members now of the EU and we are told that there is a new relationship between the countries of Europe. If the extension is to be made to the people of the Republic of Ireland, why not to the other 13 members of the EU? Why cannot they sit in this Parliament as well? Is this not a case of discrimination? Of all the people of the EU, only one country has this tremendous privilege. Under human rights and the new relationship which is growing and which many wish eventually to emerge into a union of one state, surely we should be extending the advantage to other EU members.
The truth of the matter is that the Bill is designed only to placate Sinn Fein and to enable its members to sit in the Dail and the Northern Ireland Assembly so that they can claim to be an all-Ireland party. Therefore, it is a sop to them. That is one very good reason for this Parliament to rejoice at the House of Lords rejection of the clause and to reject the Government's motion to disagree with their amendment.

Mr. McNamara: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson) because he has the unique ability to convince me that my Government are right. Sometimes in the past I have wondered about the course of action being taken by my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench, but on this occasion the hon. Gentleman has succeeded in convincing me that they are right.
I, too, welcome the fact that the President of the United States will visit these islands again next month. We should all welcome that, not only because of the closeness of our ties with the United States and its support for the creation of the European rapid reaction force, but because of its special and significant role under President Clinton in helping the peace process in Northern Ireland. We should acknowledge the President's role in his appointment of Senator Mitchell, and his continuing interest in the peace process in Northern Ireland, which at times could not have proceeded without his stalwart support.
The right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) admitted that the loss of clause 1 would destroy the Bill, and that is true. But there was a certain lack of logic in what he said. In the Northern Ireland Act 1998 he agreed to allow members of the Irish Senate to be members of the Assembly. It seems that it is all right for people in the north to be members of the Irish Senate but not for people in the Republic to be members elsewhere. There is a certain lack of logic in the cause that he has advocated today.
If the Bill were not enacted, section 36(5) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 would not be repealed. We would still be left with the right of the Irish Government to appoint people to the Irish Senate, and for those people to be Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly, without any of the restrictions currently in clause 2.
3 pm
The original alteration under the 1998 Act was made specifically to facilitate an improvement of relations and to rectify a glaring wrong. My hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) was appointed to the Irish Senate to give the people of the north a voice in the Oireachtas, but he then lost his seat in the then Assembly after a challenge by the Unionists. That bit of petty-mindedness was rectified by the 1998 Act. Had eminent people such as Senator Wilson of Enniskillen and John Robb, the distinguished surgeon, stood for election, such petty-mindedness would have prevented them from operating positively. John Robb was a great worker for reconciliation among the communities, as was Senator Wilson, who overcame a tremendous blight on his life as a result of the dreadful bombing in Enniskillen.

Mr. Robert McCartney: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. McNamara: With respect, no. I gave an undertaking to try to be brief because I know that the


hon. and learned Gentleman, the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) and the Government and Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen want to speak.
The Bill is proper and right, and the Opposition appear to be standing on their heads in respect of previous legislation that they agreed to and passed and their approach to the Bill.
Every speaker across the way on the Conservative Benches, in particular the right hon. Member for Bracknell, argued that the measure is somehow or other a concession to Sinn Fein. The largest nationalist party in Northern Ireland, which collects the most votes and has the most seats, is the Social Democratic and Labour party. It supports the provision up to the hilt. We often find that those Conservative Members disguise their reluctance to support a policy with which they once agreed—the implementation of the Good Friday agreement—by saying that the Bill is another sop to terrorists and Sinn Fein. The largest political party in the nationalist community agrees with the measure and at no time and in no circumstances has it in any way advocated violence. Indeed, it has suffered for that, having been attacked by both sides over its strong, persistent refusal to espouse or to have anything to do with violence. On the role of the SDLP, we should welcome the fact that the Government introduced the Bill.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. McNamara: No, I will not, for reasons that I gave to the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney).

Mr. Thompson: rose—

Mr. McNamara: No. I extend those reasons to the hon. Member for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson). I resisted the temptation to intervene in his speech, so I can say with honesty that I did not make any interventions.
It has been suggested that the Bill is a plot to make Sinn Fein an all-Ireland party. I hold no brief for Sinn Fein, but it is already an all-Ireland party. It already has representation in the Oireachtas and on the British-Irish Inter-Parliamentary Body. It will remain in those institutions, whether we pass the Bill or not. That will not affect its status or willingness to stand as a party in both parts of Ireland, which we know is its determination. Indeed, we know that the present coalition Government currently depend greatly for support on the four independent Members in Dail Eireann. Nothing new is being said.
The proposal involves not a great extension or a sub-revolutionary issue, but a recognition of the unique relationship between the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom. It also denotes the Government's willingness to recognise the particular situation in which nationalists in the north find themselves and recognises that they have an aspiration and that they would cease to be able to express that aspiration if the Lords amendments were added to the Bill.
When we have thrown out the Lords amendments, I hope that the other place will think very carefully about whether it is using its position down the Corridor to savage and undermine the Good Friday agreement and the peace process for its own petty political ambitions.

Mr. Robert McCartney: Listening to the contributions of the hon. Members for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) and for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) made me wonder whether I live on a different planet.
I have lived in Northern Ireland my entire life. I have worked intimately with both communities, and I have a reputation, which may seem strange to some, for being an entirely non-sectarian politician. That position has been endorsed publicly by at least two Taoisigh of the Irish Government.
What is the purpose of the Bill and this particular timing? A fundamental of attacking the democratic process has been to use the institutions of democracy to destroy it. Friedrich Engels, the political associate of Marx, was a particular advocate of that approach—he said that people who wanted to bring down and subvert an institution or a Government should make use of the very provisions that endorse the democratic process. Sinn Fein has been a master of that art. It has been inextricably linked with one of the most deadly, brutal and callous terrorist organisations in Europe. That position has been endorsed by the Prime Minister and successive Secretaries of State. Those two groups are inextricably linked, which means that they can never be separated.
When I consider the direction of, and progress in, the peace process, what do I see? I see the threat of physical violence, particularly to the mainland and the complex civilisation that great metropolitan areas offer. I see the targets that those areas offer. I see successive British Governments faced with the question of what to do in the face of a terrorist threat, which can be made good against our major cities.
There are two approaches to that problem. The first is to follow the advice of Lord Palmerston and say that England—he thought of the United Kingdom as England—has no long-term friends and no long-term enemies, merely interests. At present, the interests of the British Government are best served by appeasing the IRA. Such a policy does not work in the face of terror. It did not work between 1936 and 1940, when exactly the same methodology and surrender to terrorism were employed.
Another view—another tradition in British politics—was expressed by Lord Salisbury when he described surrender to the barbarians as a fatal vice that destroyed society and, indeed, turned an organised society into a mob of competing interests. That is exactly what that policy has done to Northern Ireland. It has turned what was an organised society into a mob of competing interests. The whole policy has encapsulated Salisbury's fatal vice.
Have no doubt: by any criteria, members of the IRA, with which Sinn Fein is inextricably linked, are barbarians. One of their barbarous acts was referred to by the hon. Member for Hull, North when he talked about Enniskillen. He tried to invert the argument by saying that Gordon Wilson, whose daughter was killed in that atrocity, nevertheless accepted an Irish Taoiseach's offer to become a member of the Irish Senate. That is true, but who committed the barbarity of Enniskillen? The IRA, which the Prime Minister tells us is inextricably linked with the one political party likely to benefit most from these provisions.
It could be logically argued—the hon. Member for Islington, North developed such an argument—that MEPs from Finland, Members of the Dail Eireann and Members


of the Scottish Parliament could bifurcate, do many things and be in different places at once. Logically, that is possible, but in practice it is impossible. That is shown by the fact that membership of this House is available to people in Commonwealth countries, but no one has taken advantage of that process, which is perhaps nothing more than an historical anomaly.
The situation in Northern Ireland is very different because of what I described as the accident of proximity. Ireland is proximate to the United Kingdom mainland, and has a physically contiguous border with part of the United Kingdom—Northern Ireland. The influx of citizens of the Republic is such that their numbers must be recognised. Indeed, that is one of the factors that people do not understand. Since the Republic of Ireland became an independent sovereign country outside the Commonwealth, more than 1 million of its citizens have thought it advisable to live, work and enjoy the benefits of the land of the Anglo-Saxon oppressor—the United Kingdom.
3.15 pm
The truth is that both the content and the timing of the Bill are entirely dictated by a process of appeasement and of encouraging Sinn Fein to live up to promises that it never fulfils. It shows the vacillating and cowardly nature of successive British Governments, who have decided to succumb to the fatal vice and appease the barbarians.
We started off in 1993 with the Downing street declaration—the joint Government declaration—paragraph 10 of which was absolutely specific that any party that wished to participate in the democratic process of negotiations towards a settlement would first have to eschew violence permanently, and would have to demonstrate its total commitment to solely democratic means. Most democrats would say, "Fair do's. That's a basic principle of democracy," especially as there is no evidence from the democratic world of an Executive who claim to be democratic but who contain Ministers who are inextricably linked to an armed terrorist organisation. The reason why there is no example of that elsewhere in the world is that it goes to the very heart of the democratic process—it is the antithesis of the democratic process.
What have British Governments done? They have moved from the position in paragraph 10 to a midway position. Under the so-called Washington 3 principle, they permitted Sinn Fein-IRA to take part in the negotiations if they showed an earnest of their good faith by handing over a tranche of their weaponry and bombs. In August 1995, the Northern Ireland Office issued a statement to the effect that to do otherwise would be undemocratic and unconstitutional. That was the first of a number of positions from which successive British Governments resiled, and they gave in to the fatal vice of appeasing the barbarians.
The next step was to get Sinn Fein-IRA into the negotiations. Under the Government, they were allowed into the negotiations in July 1997 on the basis of a six-week ceasefire and the resumption of a ceasefire that had proved to be tactical, short-lived, totally cynical and broken at will with the Canary Wharf bomb.
That was not the end of it, because after Sinn Fein-IRA were admitted into the negotiations, successive Secretaries of State told the people of Northern Ireland that the negotiations were on a twin track: one track would

deliver a political settlement, and the other would deliver decommissioning. We were told that, in the end, we would have a political settlement on a democratic basis, with the fundamental and overriding requirement of democracy that all the parties to that democratic political settlement would be dedicated entirely to peaceful means, having abandoned their weaponry.
Well, 10 April 1998 arrived and the parties signed the agreement, but the decommissioning train never even left the station. Not a single ounce of Semtex or a single bullet has yet been handed over. There again, democracy was to make a final contribution to appeasing the terrorists and exhibit the fatal vice.
The agreement was a total fudge. People talk about the Belfast agreement or the Good Friday agreement as if it was some miracle of peace. In fact, it encapsulated the basic fiction of trading Sinn Fein and the IRA as two distinct and separate entities, which was always what Sinn Fein wanted. Why? Because it wanted to carry on Friedrich Engels's principle of using the institutions of democracy to destroy it, and it could do that only by giving Sinn Fein the image of a totally independent party that has nothing to do with the IRA, who were armed.
The Bill is a further instalment of the fatal vice. In both its content and its timing, its purpose is to placate Sinn Fein-IRA, because they can deliver one thing that no one else can: destruction and death to the major cities of the United Kingdom, just as Hitler was able to do. In those days, Mr. Chamberlain and Lord Halifax followed the line of appeasement and gave in to the fatal vice. Only when a man appeared and adopted a policy that said, "We will pay no more ransom and we will stand up for what is right, democratic and honourable" were the United Kingdom and Europe saved from fascism.
The IRA will not go away. It will continue to extract further and further ransoms.
The House should consider this. In 1939, bombs were kept out of London because the Czechs were sacrificed. In this House the then Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain, asked "What do we know of this faraway country?" He spoke of "this middle European country of which we know little." When it comes to the sacrifice of a foreign interest such as the Czechs, or the sacrifice of the loyal British subjects—the pro-Union subjects—of Northern Ireland, we perhaps find that both are expendable.
One does not like to make it too evident. One does not do it in one fell swoop. One employs the gradualist principle. We are talking about slices of salami, and this is another slice: another derogation from the principle of democracy which states that terrorists and their political frontmen should never be placated. We should never, ever surrender to the fatal vice of appeasing the barbarians.

Mr. Hogg: In view of the lateness of the hour, and because I know others wish to speak, I shall be brief. I shall confine myself to four points—no, five.
I strongly support what was said by the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney). He asked, rhetorically, what was the purpose of the Bill, and why it had been presented at this stage. I hope the Under-Secretary of State will forgive me if I say that I do not think that he advanced a good reason for the Bill's existence. He spoke—I listened to him carefully—of the warm relations between us and the Government of Ireland. There are such warm relations, and I am glad that


there are; but that is in no sense a sufficient justification for what we are doing. We have warm relations with the Governments of all European Union countries, but we are not considering giving those countries the rights that we are minded to give the citizens of Ireland.
I agree with the hon. and learned Member for North Down and others that this is part of a deal that has been struck with Sinn Fein. I find that a great obstacle to giving the Bill any further consideration, because I am extremely cautious about giving any concessions to Sinn Fein. I ask myself "Why should I?", and I cannot reach a sensible conclusion. Sinn Fein has been an apologist for murder for many years.

Mr. MacKay: Come on, Dougie.

Mr. Hogg: I am going to come on.

Mr. MacKay: It is a question of time.

Mr. Hogg: I am well aware of that, but, if my right hon. Friend will forgive me for a moment, I intend to make my points.
I am not in favour of making any concessions to Sinn Fein, and I regard that as a serious objection to what we are doing. Sinn Fein has not made concessions to democracy, and I am not in favour of making concessions to Sinn Fein.
That was my first point. My second is that there will be an inherent clash of loyalties. There is bound to be a division of loyalties between those who sit in the Dail and those who sit in this House. We need only look at the terms of the oath—they are in "Erskine May"; Members may wish to remind themselves of them—to see that they are incompatible with sitting in another legislature. [Interruption.]
I wish my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) would stop interrupting. He spoke at considerable length himself. [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I called the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), and he must be able to make his speech without interruption.

Mr. Hogg: I am merely making my points, but I am being barracked by my own Front Bench, and I do not approve of it.

Mr. MacKay: Oh dear, dear, dear.

Mr. Hogg: My right hon. Friend may not like being barracked from behind, and I do not like being barracked from in front. It is discourteous, apart from anything else.
I was talking about the clash of loyalties that will be inherent if a member of another legislature is allowed to sit in this House.
Let me now make my third point, which relates to the Commonwealth. It is true that citizens of Commonwealth countries have long enjoyed the right that we are now minded to extend to citizens of Ireland, but, as the Under-Secretary of State rightly pointed out in an

intervention, it has not been exercised within the last 100 years. I am bound to say that, if I had to consider giving such a right to a Commonwealth citizen, I would not do so. That is not to say that we should use parliamentary time to take the right away, but the precedent is not satisfactory, and I would not base an argument on it.
My fourth point is this. If we are to grant the right to citizens of the Republic, I see no distinction between that and granting it to a citizen of any European Union country. I would rather take the route of reciprocity by giving the right to all citizens of all European Union countries than give a distinctive right to citizens of the Republic.
That brings me to my last point—which I would have reached even sooner had I been given time by my right hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield.

Mr. MacKay: Bracknell!

Mr. Hogg: I mean my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell.
My last point relates to the lack of reciprocity. A franchise generally implies the existence of reciprocal rights, but there are no effective reciprocal rights in the case of Ireland, because membership of the Dail is confined to citizens of Ireland. I think that a perfectly sensible requirement, but I do not see why we should give rights to the citizens of Ireland unless there is proper reciprocity between its citizens and the legislature here in Westminster.

Mr. John M. Taylor: First, as the Minister said at the outset, without clause 1, the Bill is meaningless; secondly, the whole discussion has nothing to do with the Good Friday agreement; and, thirdly, it was bogus from the outset to claim that the need for the Bill was ever urgent. We have had since 1949 to do something; moreover, the issue unaccountably disappeared for 10 months.
The parallels with the Commonwealth are no longer of any relevance, because no one has come here from a Commonwealth Parliament in the past 100 years. Moreover, no discernible party has any beneficial interest except Sinn Fein, whose interest is destabilising as far as Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom as a whole are concerned.
In another place, Lord Cope summarised the arguments with the greatest possible cogency and coherence. Had I been given a little longer, I might have quoted some extracts from what he had to say; but as I have not, I simply commend his remarks to the House.
The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) reminded us that, once upon a time—for that matter, it is still technically the case—Members here could be elected for more than one constituency. Of course, they always had to disclaim one. The hon. Gentleman also asked a question, which I also ask: what reciprocation will there be for the Government's largesse? The answer is none. Could we sit in the Dail? No.
I can bring personal experience to the arguments about the European Parliament. I had a dual mandate for 12 months between 1983 and 1984, but in both places my loyalty was to the United Kingdom and in particular to the English midlands, and in only one Parliament did I swear an oath.
I thought the speech of the hon. Member for East Londonderry was splendid, in that he agreed with me, not least about who the two beneficiaries were.

Mr. Corbyn: Is that why it was a splendid speech?

Mr. Taylor: I was not deliberately paying myself a compliment. I lack the vanity for that.
I enjoyed the entertaining speech of the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik), who, I am led to believe, recently appeared even more entertainingly on television. He described his assessment of the Bill as "a judgment call". I think that that is a type of Liberal Democrat post-modernism, to be contrasted with the stern reminder about consequences from the hon. Member for East Londonderry.
3.30 pm
My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) gave us a very valuable, if disturbing insight into the Committee's consideration of the Bill. He also drew on yesterday's speech by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond).
My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot also unburdened himself powerfully on the subject of the Saville inquiry. I shall not follow him down that road.
An article of good faith and a convention of the House is that, if an hon. Member inadvertently misleads another Member or other Members, he or she will put it right at the first opportunity. In his admirable speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot was asked by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire if a "Conservative Government would repeal". Thinking that the hon. Gentleman was referring to this Bill, I nodded. However, when he completed his question, I realised that he was referring to Commonwealth entitlement. Had I known that, I would not have nodded.
Although the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) was predictable, he was—to give him his due—consistent.
The hon. Member for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson) felt that the Bill would be better described as a qualifications Bill. He also spoke of the missing 10 months in the life of the Bill.
The hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) claimed that he was reassured if he found himself at odds with the hon. Member for West Tyrone. I can reciprocate that sentiment in favour of him.
The hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney), by contrast, gave us an authentic Northern Ireland view, as well as a quote from Palmerston. For good measure, he also gave us a quote from Salisbury.
I have personally done my best, in rather difficult circumstances, to repair the winding-up speech convention between Front Benchers. I hope that the Minister will take that as a gesture of good faith on my part, which I do not extend to the legislation.

Mr. George Howarth: The good faith and generosity of the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) is always taken as read by Labour Members, and certainly by me. I would not in any way malign him for his speech.
I shall try to address some of the issues that have been raised in this quite good and interesting debate. When people have had legitimate concerns, they have expressed them.
The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross), among other hon. Members, asked who wants the Bill. The Government want the Bill, or we would not have proposed it. However, that is not the whole story, because the Bill is worth while in its own terms. I have already given the reasons why I believe that, and I do not want to detain the House by repeating them, but there are compelling and persuasive reasons why the Bill should be passed.
Not only is the Bill supported by Sinn Fein, but it has been welcomed by people in the nationalist community in Northern Ireland—including members of the nationalist public who want the democratic principle to be widened and improved, and members of other political parties, notably the Social Democratic and Labour party. I admit that—for whatever reasons, although I am sure that they are good ones—SDLP Members are not here to express that support in person. However, I have had discussions with the Deputy First Minister, the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), and with the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady), and they have continuously reassured me that they very much support the Bill.
Two other parties represented in the Assembly—the Northern Ireland Women's Coalition and the Alliance party—have expressed their support for the Bill. Although I do not pretend that their support for the Bill has always been ringing, they understand some of the precedents and compelling reasons behind it.
Last but not least, the Bill has been welcomed by the Irish Government. Because we are on such warm terms with the Irish Government, I believe that it is important that we continue that understanding. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson) doubts those warm terms. I do not know what relationship he has with the Irish Government, but he should not confuse his feelings for them with the Government's relations with them.
The issue of reciprocity has been raised. An equivalent to the Disqualifications Bill does not exist in Irish law, which does not prevent someone from sitting in both the Irish and British legislatures. However, as has rightly been said, nationality is one criterion determining eligibility to stand for the Dail Eireann. Anyone with Irish nationality can stand for the Dail.
Although I am sure that the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) would not want to take Irish nationality, it is available to him. For all I know, he may have taken it—although I suspect not.

Mr. Robert McCartney: indicated dissent.

Mr. Howarth: Nevertheless, it is open to any member of the community in Northern Ireland to take Irish nationality. Indeed, as the House has expressed such enthusiasm for the principle of reciprocity, through the channels available to us, I shall make it clear to the Irish Government that there seems to be enthusiastic support for a different approach to nationality.

Mr. Thompson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Howarth: No; I do not have time. The hon. Gentleman will forgive me, but he himself spoke at great length, and I have very little time.
I should like to make one other point on the SDLP, the wider nationalist community and other supporters of the Bill, and to make it directly to the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay). I do not think that he intended to be in any way discourteous to any of those parties. I know that, as a supporter of the Good Friday agreement—although he has some reservations about some aspects of it—he has respect for the parties that support the agreement. However, in saying that the Bill exists only to appease Sinn Fein and the IRA, the right hon. Gentleman could—I am sure inadvertently—give offence to the other parties in Northern Ireland that support the Bill.
I know that the right hon. Gentleman would not wish to give offence to the SDLP, which supports the Bill, or to the Alliance party. Although the Alliance party has some reservations about the principles involved, it supports the Bill. I am sure that the right hon Gentleman would not wish to give offence to the Northern Ireland Women's Coalition, which in very specific terms has supported the Bill. Of course he would also not wish to give offence to the Irish Government, who have welcomed the Bill. Therefore, to say that the Bill is purely about appeasing Sinn Fein and the IRA is to be unfair to the other parties that have supported it.
I believe that what we are trying to do is to further the warm and close relationships that we have with the Republic of Ireland. I hope that the House will recognise that, and that hon. Members will support us in rejecting the Lords amendment. I also hope that the House of Lords will recognise that another large majority in this place in favour of clause 1 is a very heavy hint about our precise feelings about it.

Question put, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 338, Noes 129.

Division No. 366]
[3.40 pm


AYES


Ainger, Nick
Benton, Joe


Alexander, Douglas
Berry, Roger


Allan, Richard

Best, Harold


Allen, Graham
Betts, Clive


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Blackman, Liz


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Blears, Ms Hazel


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Blizzard, Bob


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Borrow, David


Atherton, Ms Candy
Bradley, Keith (Withington)


Atkins, Charlotte
Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)


Austin, John
Bradshaw, Ben


Bailey, Adrian
Brake, Tom


Banks, Tony
Breed, Colin


Barnes, Harry
Brinton, Mrs Helen


Barron, Kevin
Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)


Battle, John
Brown, Russell (Dumfries)


Bayley, Hugh
Browne, Desmond


Beard, Nigel
Buck, Ms Karen


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Butler, Mrs Christine


Begg, Miss Anne
Byers, Rt Hon Stephen


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Caborn, Rt Hon Richard


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C?bridge)


Bennett, Andrew F
Campbell-Savours, Dale





Caplin, Ivor
Grocott, Bruce


Casale, Roger
Grogan, John


Caton, Martin
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Cawsey, Ian
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Chaytor, David
Hanson, David


Chidgey, David
Healey, John


Clapham, Michael
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Hendrick, Mark


Clark, Dr Lynda
Hepburn, Stephen


(Edinburgh Pentlands)
Heppell, John


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Hill, Keith


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hinchliffe, David


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Clelland, David
Hood, Jimmy


Clwyd, Ann
Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Coaker, Vernon
Hope, Phil


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hopkins, Kelvin


Coleman, Iain
Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)


Colman, Tony
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Connarty, Michael
Hoyle, Lindsay


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Cooper, Yvette
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Corston, Jean
Humble, Mrs Joan


Cotter, Brian
Hurst, Alan


Cousins, Jim
Hutton, John


Cox, Tom
Iddon, Dr Brian


Cranston, Ross
Illsley, Eric


Crausby, David
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Jamieson, David


Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire
Jenkins, Brian


Dalyell, Tam
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Johnson, Miss Melanie


Darvill, Keith
(Welwyn Hatfield)


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)


Davidson, Ian
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Jones, Ms Jenny


Dean, Mrs Janet
(Wolverh'ton SW)


Denham, John
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Dismore, Andrew
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Dobbin, Jim
Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa


Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Donohoe, Brian H
Keeble, Ms Sally


Dowd, Jim
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Drown, Ms Julia
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Kelly, Ms Ruth


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Kemp, Fraser


Edwards, Huw
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Efford, Clive
Khabra, Piara S


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Kidney, David


Ennis, Jeff
Kilfoyle, Peter


Fitzpatrick, Jim
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Flint, Caroline
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


Flynn, Paul
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Lammy, David


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Laxton, Bob


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Lepper, David


Galloway, George
Levitt, Tom


Gapes, Mike
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Gardiner, Barry
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Linton, Martin


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Gerrard, Neil
Love, Andrew


Gibson, Dr Ian
McAvoy, Thomas


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
McCabe, Steve


Godman, Dr Norman A
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Godsiff, Roger
McDonagh, Siobhain


Goggins, Paul
 Macdonald, Calum


Golding, Mrs Llin
McDonnell, John


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
McFall, John


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
McIsaac, Shona


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
McNamara, Kevin






McNulty, Tony
Sarwar, Mohammad


Mactaggart, Fiona
Savidge, Malcolm


McWalter, Tony
Sawford, Phil


McWilliam, John
Sedgemore, Brian


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Shaw, Jonathan


Mallaber, Judy
Sheerman, Barry


Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Shipley, Ms Debra


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Short, Rt Hon Clare


Martlew, Eric
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Maxton, John
Singh, Marsha


Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Skinner, Dennis


Merron, Gillian
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Michael, Rt Hon Alun
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


Miller, Andrew
Smith, Miss Geraldine


Mitchell, Austin
(Morecambe & Lunesdale)



Moffatt, Laura
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Moran, Ms Margaret
Snape, Peter


Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)
Soley, Clive


Morley, Elliot
Southworth, Ms Helen


Morris, Rt Hon Sir John
Spellar, John


(Aberavon)
Squire, Ms Rachel


Mountford, Kali
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Mullin, Chris
Steinberg, Gerry


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Stevenson, George


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Stoate, Dr Howard


Norris, Dan
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Stringer, Graham


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Stuart, Ms Gisela


O'Hara, Eddie
Stunell, Andrew


Olner, Bill
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann


O'Neill, Martin
(Dewsbury)


Öpik, Lembit
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Organ, Mrs Diana
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Osborne, Ms Sandra
Temple-Morris, Peter


Palmer, Dr Nick
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Pearson, Ian
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


Perham, Ms Linda
Timms, Stephen


Pickthall, Colin
Tipping, Paddy


Pike, Peter L
Todd, Mark


Plaskitt, James
Touhig, Don


Pollard, Kerry
Trickett, Jon


Pond, Chris
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Pope, Greg
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Pound, Stephen
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Prescott, Rt Hon John
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Primarolo, Dawn



Prosser, Gwyn
Tyler paul


Purchase, Ken
Tynan, Bill


Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce
Vis Dr Rudi


Quinn, Lawrie
Walley, Ms Joan


Radice, Rt Hon Giles
Ward, Ms Claire


Rapson, Syd
Wareing, Robert N


Raynsford, Nick
Watts, David


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Webb, Steve


Rendel, David
White, Brian


Robertson, John
Whitehead, Dr Alan


(Glasgow Anniesland)
Wicks, Malcolm


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Rogers, Allan
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff
Winnick, David


Rooney, Terry
Woolas, Phil


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Worthington, Tony


Rowlands, Ted
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Roy, Frank
Wright, Tony (Cannock)


Ruddock, Joan
Wyatt, Derek


Russell, Bob (Colchester)



Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Tellers for the Ayes: 


Ryan, Ms Joan
Mr. Robert Ainsworth and


Salter, Martin
Mrs. Anne McGuire.





NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Amess, David
Leigh, Edward


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Letwin, Oliver


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Baldry, Tony
Lidington, David


Beggs, Roy
Luff, Peter


Beresford, Sir Paul
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Body, Sir Richard
McCartney, Robert (N Down)


Boswell, Tim
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Brady, Graham
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew


Brazier, Julian
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
McLoughlin, Patrick


Browning, Mrs Angela
Madel, Sir David


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Maples, John


Burns, Simon
May, Mrs Theresa


Butterfill, John
Moss, Malcolm


Cash, William
Norman, Archie


Chapman, Sir Sydney
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)


(Chipping Barnet)
Ottaway, Richard


Chope, Christopher
Page, Richard


Clappison, James
Paice, James


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Pickles, Eric


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


(Rushcliffe)
Prior, David


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Collins, Tim
Robathan, Andrew


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Cran, James
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Curry, Rt Hon David
Ross, William (E Lond'y)


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Ruffley, David


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
St Aubyn, Nick


Day, Stephen
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Shepherd, Richard


Evans, Nigel
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Faber, David
Soames, Nicholas


Fabricant, Michael
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Fallon, Michael
Spicer, Sir Michael


Flight, Howard
Spring, Richard


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Steen, Anthony


Fox, Dr Liam
Streeter, Gary


Fraser, Christopher
Swayne, Desmond


Gale, Roger
Syms, Robert


Garnier, Edward
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Gibb, Nick
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Gray, James
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Green, Damian
Thompson, William


Grieve, Dominic

Townend, John


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Tredinnick, David


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Trend, Michael


Hammond, Philip
Tyrie, Andrew


Hawkins, Nick
Walter, Robert


Heald, Oliver
Waterson, Nigel


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Wells, Bowen


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Whittingdale, John


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Horam, John
Wilkinson, John


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Willetts, David


Hunter, Andrew
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey 
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Key, Robert
Tellers for the Noes:


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Mr. John Randall and


Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Mr. Peter Atkinson.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendment disagreed to.

It being more than three hours after commencement of proceedings, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the remaining Questions required to be put at that hour, pursuant to Order [29 November].

Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 9 agreed to.

Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendment No. 1: Mr. James Cran, Mr. Jim Dowd, Mr. George Howarth, Mr. Tom Levitt and Mr. John M. Taylor to be members of the Committee; Mr. George Howarth to be the Chairman of the Committee; Three to be the quorum of the Committee.—[Mr. Dowd.]

To withdraw immediately.

Reasons for disagreeing to Lords amendment No. 1 reported and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.

AMENDMENT OF SECTION 1(1)(E) OF THE DISQUALIFICATION ACTS

Lords amendment: No. 1, Leave out Clause 1

Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill

Lords amendments in lieu of certain Lords amendments to which the Commons have disagreed, considered.

Schedule 1

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in their amendment in lieu of Lords amendment No. 121.
The amendment requires selection panels to be set up in respect of all appointments made to local probation boards by the Secretary of State after the National Probation Service comes into effect. It further requires that the board be represented on any selection panel making a final recommendation about the appointment of the chief officer.
On consideration of Lords amendments, the House rightly disagreed to an amendment that would have made local probation boards responsible for the appointment of chief probation officers. Our view is that such appointments should be made by the Secretary of State. We regard this as one of the essential elements in the creation of a truly national service that is well equipped to reduce reoffending and to protect the public.
To ensure that the National Probation Service is ready to come into being on 1 April 2001, we have undertaken preparatory work and set up arrangements for the appointment of chief officers. We have ensured that a local representative, usually the chairman designate of the board, will be included as a member of the selection panel. That is important in order to ensure adequate local input into the selection decision.
On further consideration in another place, the Government's proposals were agreed, subject to the amendment now before us. This ensures that the procedure of securing local involvement in selection that the Government have begun will continue into the new service.
I commend the amendment to the House.

Mr. Nick Hawkins: My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) has suggested in debates on the Government's earlier versions of clauses relating to this issue that, although there may be some merit in the principle of chief officers of probation boards being appointed centrally—and we recognise that the Government have now, in national guillotine week, been forced to make further concessions—our colleagues in


another place raised legitimate concerns about the proposal. In particular, the question was raised as to where the balance of responsibility should lie when a chief officer is centrally appointed. For example, if someone serving a probation order were injured during their detention in a probation hostel, who would be liable?
In my previous professional career, as well as in my parliamentary career, I have dealt with the legal side of those sentenced to probation orders. I am well aware that the questions of legal responsibility and liability are exceptionally important. Conservative Members are not convinced that the Government have addressed those concerns fully in the last-minute concession and revision that they have been forced to make. The amendment deals only with an alteration in the process of appointing the chief officer, and not with the substantive point about which my noble Friend Baroness Blatch spoke in another place two days ago.
There is little precedent for the method of appointing chief officers that the Government have now chosen. Chief constables and chief executives of national health service trusts are not appointed centrally. We have pointed out on many occasions when dealing with the Bill that the Secretary of State is proposing to give himself great powers. That is another example of the Government behaving like control freaks. It is recognised inside and beyond this place that this is a control-freak Government. The Home Secretary has undoubtedly arrogated to himself huge powers in the Bill. As it stood, the clause allowing the chief officer to be appointed directly by the Home Secretary was just another in a long line of powers that the Home Secretary was taking to himself in the Bill.
The overall power remains. The Government made a last-minute concession after the proposals were severely mauled in another place, and it is possible that it might be a way out of the problem that the Government have set for themselves. The Home Secretary has acknowledged in the House on a previous occasion that there is a tension.
We recognise that the Home Secretary has given assurances about the lines of accountability. We welcome the fact that the Government have been forced to make a concession and that they have agreed to address the concerns raised by Baroness Blatch and other Conservative peers in another place.
4 pm
We also welcome the fact that at least this section of the Bill has been allowed a further debate in national guillotine week—a week in which proper debates have been rare. For example, earlier this week, when we were considering a major piece of legislation, only two groups of amendments out of the nine listed were debated at all, and many matters on which we wished to divide the House were never even reached.
Although we feel that the Government have been right to make some concessions, concerns remain. Some of my right hon. and hon. Friends may take the opportunity of this debate to raise their continuing concerns about the powers of the Home Secretary.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The amendment that has come back to us is not what my colleagues and I wanted. We supported the position of the Lords on the previous round, when they insisted that the chief probation officer should be appointed by the board and then

approved by the Secretary of State, rather than the other way round. Just for the record, the matter went back to the Lords once the Government had reversed their decision last time. The Government were nearly defeated again in a vote—their majority was only 12 earlier this week when the Bill was back at the other end of the building.
This is still a hotly contested matter. As the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) made it clear, it relates to the question whether we have more central or more devolved control. I shall not rehearse the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) in our previous debate in this place. However, when she put the case for more local control and the Secretary of State started to put the contrary case, he soon became aware that his case was not borne out by the facts, which he was good enough to admit.
There are no universal parallels—such people are not always appointed centrally. Chairs of school governors, head teachers, chairs of governing bodies of colleges, chancellors of universities, chief executives of health authorities—a particularly good parallel example—and of health trusts are all appointed locally. There is a process, of course, and the appointments depend on what system applies. However, there is no universal rule.
We preferred the alternative proposal. However, we had to decide whether to go up and down the Corridor for another 24 hours or whether to accept an amendment that is a compromise—albeit a compromise in the right direction—and, if so, whether to amend it further. This amendment is better than nothing, but it is only a compromise position. It does two things: it provides for a selection panel process and for board representation in the selection process by the Secretary of State.
We have had a big general debate this parliamentary year about the future of the probation and prison services, and the interlinking inspectorates of both. However, we have not seen established the sort of continuous review process that would be beneficial to politicians and to professionals, would depoliticise these issues slightly and would regularly allow a proper appraisal of the good functioning of the services. I have argued before for a standing conference on the police so that there could be regular appraisal of what we need to do to reform the police service. My colleagues and I strongly believe that that would be very appropriate at present in relation to the prison and probation services.
I have one other timetabling comment. It is a sign of the year that we have had that on what is—or may be—the last day of the parliamentary year, we are considering the third Home Office Bill to have come to the House this day. This week, we have dealt with five Home Office Bills, some of which are still to complete all their stages. We had the Freedom of Information Bill on Monday; the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill yesterday; the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill; the Disqualifications Bill; and now we are debating the Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill.
I am not against legislation when it is necessary. I am not even against having 12 Home Office Bills in a year, if necessary. However, like the Minister, I will not be unhappy if the Queen's Speech contains a smaller number. If, as the press reports say, we get no more
than six, we will be pleased. If the Government manage to consolidate the six into three—which looks as though it might be possible—we would be even happier, as would Parliament.
I repeat that I am not against legislation where it is necessary, but we should learn the lesson that it is not good to legislate on the hoof. I share the view of the hon. Member for Surrey Heath that although today, as it happens, we do not have a guillotine on this Bill, we had a guillotine on the Disqualifications Bill. We had a severe guillotine on the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill yesterday and another severe guillotine on the Freedom of Information Bill on Monday. Even if we discount extended contributions—not necessarily all central to the point, although all in order—we must, as a Parliament, be able to do our job better than we can by preventing discussion of many matters and rushing discussion of a load of legislation through at the end of the parliamentary year.
We shall not object further. Given that the amendment is a compromise rather than an absolute refusal, we are prepared to accept it, although it would certainly not be our first option.

Mr. Eric Forth: The Minister gave the lie to the difficulties that seem to face everyone who has participated so far in the debate by reminding the House that we are dealing with appointments by the Secretary of State. When the Minister spoke of a truly national service, but with adequate local input, he summarised very well the dilemma that comes through clearly in the schedule with which we are dealing and the amendment that we are considering.
To make sense of the amendment, which refers to paragraph (2)4 of schedule 1, we have to look at the way in which the schedule is structured and so put the amendment into context. Schedule 1 deals with local boards. They are to
consist of a chairman, a chief officer and not less than five other members.
It is worth reminding ourselves that one of the members is to be appointed by the Lord Chancellor from among judges of the Crown court. That is all specific and straightforward enough, and would reinforce the national element of the Minister's desire. Then—here is the key to the matter—paragraph 2(3) states:
The chairman, the chief officer and the other members are to be appointed by the Secretary of State.
So far so good, one would have thought. Quite a key point is made in paragraph 2(4), which states:
Regulations may make provision as to their appointment…
This is only a permissive provision; it is not prescriptive to say that regulations "may" make provision as to their appointment. I suppose—unless the Minister tells me otherwise—that it would be perfectly possible under the schedule, certainly in theory, for the Secretary of State to appoint the board members anyway.
Amendment No. 121 says that the regulations made under section 4 "must make provision". However, as paragraph 2(4) of schedule 1 refers only to "may", there

is a provisionality here—if that is a word—of which we must be aware. The Minister is looking puzzled, and I am open to correction.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: I am not quite sure whether the right hon. Gentleman has read the provision properly or whether I have misunderstood his point. Is he suggesting that the Secretary of State may appoint the persons whom others, such as the Lord Chancellor, are appointing, or is he simply referring to the tenure? Paragraph 3(4) of schedule 1 states:
Regulations may make provision as to the tenure of office of the members (including the circumstances in which they cease to hold office or may be removed or suspended from office).

Mr. Forth: I am grateful to the Minister, but I am looking at schedule 1(2)(4), which states:
Regulations may make provision as to the appointment (including the number, or limits on the number, of members who may be appointed
and so forth. The Lords amendment enhances or elaborates on that provision. As the words used in the schedule are "may make provision," the Lords amendment may never come into effect. The primary regulations may not be made. I put down that marker, which is worth bearing in mind.
We are talking about the procedure whereby most of the members of the board are to be appointed. We know that one will certainly be appointed by the Lord Chancellor, who can only appoint a Crown court judge. That much we know.
The schedule states:
Regulations may make provision as to their appointment
and continues, helpfully, with the words "including the number". That raises some interesting questions about the sort of number that the Minister may have in mind—or the limits on the number. The schedule continues with the words:
and any conditions to be fulfilled for appointment as a member,
which is an important provision. It suggests that the whole matter could be severely prescribed by regulations, thus limiting the options that may be open.
The amendment reads:
Regulations made by virtue of sub-paragraph (4) and coming into force on or after the coming into force of section 4 must make provision—
(a) for the selection procedure for the chairman, the chief officer and other members of the hoard who are to be appointed by the Secretary of State to include selection panels.

Mr. James Clappison: Before my right hon. Friend moves on to the role of selection panels, which I apprehend will be his next point, does he share my curiosity about the appointment by the Lord Chancellor of the Crown court judge to the board? I do not dispute the appointment, but why is it to be a Crown court judge and not a member of the lay magistracy? Magistrates have far more experience of dealing with the probation service and see more of its workings than Crown court judges.

Mr. Forth: I have an eye on you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as I suspect you may be on the point of telling me that that question is not strictly germane to the amendment.


I am always loth to run foul of you, sir, so I will decline to answer my hon. Friend directly for the moment. I may return to his question.
A sequence of procedures is being built up that I assume is supposed to be helpful. Although the regulations only "may" be made, they must make provision if they are made. In the amendment, we have an apparently helpful addition to the requirement for the selection procedure for the chairman, chief officer and other members of the board, which is, "to include selection panels".
Who will appoint the panels? From my experience, what is often supposed to be a reassurance in such cases is not. If one were cynical—those who know me know that that could never be said of me—one might say that the provision amounts to additional bureaucracy, not to say obfuscation. I will not argue that case. For the moment at least, I will accept the Minister's argument at face value. We are supposed to assume that including selection panels in the process is designed to be helpful and positive, but it gives rise to the question, "Who will select the panels?"
I assume that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will agree that that is a very old question in politics. It is all very well trying to establish a mechanism that looks bland, neutral, innocuous or helpful, but one must look behind that. I am supposed to be reassured by the selection panel, which will play a key role in the appointment of the chairman, the chief officer and other members of the board. Who will appoint that panel? I bet I know the answer before the Minister gives it. I would not mind betting that it is the Secretary of State.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: indicated assent.

Mr. Forth: The Minister indicates that I am right. That is not due to any great perspicacity on my part. I just know these things because it is the way the world works, and it is certainly the way this Government work. The Minister is trying to persuade us that selection panels are a good thing, but he will be the one to appoint them—technically it will be the Secretary of State, but in reality it will probably be the Minister

Mr. Hawkins: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the question that he has raised goes back almost to classical times? It concerns the powers of Government and who really guards the guards—quis custodiet again. That issue is particularly relevant for this Government, above all, because they always want to take more power into their hands.

Mr. Forth: I am afraid that that appears to be the case. In deciding who will be on the panel, it is inevitable that a degree of influence—not to say control—will come into the process.
For example, will the Lord Chancellor be consulted by the Secretary of State about the formation of the panel? In that case, the Lord Chancellor will have double the influence. He is already to appoint one member directly. He may even be allowed to appoint members of the panel. It could go as far as that. One immediately sees the difficulty that arises.

Mr. Hawkins: As my right hon. Friend will know, I have a particular interest in what the Lord Chancellor

may or may not do, as I shadow the Lord Chancellor's Department. Would my right hon. Friend be interested to know that the Lord Chancellor might be consulted behind the scenes, informally. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) asked whether the appointments should be circuit judges or lay magistrates. It is worrying that it is not clear whether the consultations will be happening behind the scenes, with rumours and messages between Ministers. We want such decisions to be open and transparent, not the result of control freakery, on which, sadly, the Government seem to be bent.

Mr. Forth: I am afraid that I agree that that is the case. I will deal with the relationship between sub-paragraph (4), the amendment and sub-paragraph (5). Of course, the latter states:
Regulations must provide, so far as it is practicable to do so, for the persons appointed to be representative of the local community in the board's area.
I mention that in the context of the selection process. Presumably there will have to be an attempt to develop some knowledge of the characteristics and requirements of each local area to fulfil the requirement in sub-paragraph (5).
I am running ahead of myself. Having identified the problem—or at least the implication about selection panels—paragraph (b) of the amendment states that regulations may be made
in the case of the chief officer—
singling him out—
for the board to be represented on any selection panel …
That raises another interesting question. Will the board decide what its representation on the panel will be, or will the Secretary of State decide how the board will be represented?
There could be a conflict. Let us suppose that the Lord Chancellor says, "I insist that it is my appointee on the board who will be the representative on the selection panel." The Secretary of State may say, "No. I will decide which of the board will be represented." The board may say, "No, we want to decide who will represent us on the selection panel."
It is a fair question to ask know how the process will work, since there are some doubts as to that. Guidance from the Minister would be helpful. Having said that, all that will happen is that a final representation will be made to the Secretary of State. It will come as no surprise to old hands at this business that the Secretary of State is going to do it anyway; he is subject only to a recommendation. The board is to be represented on the selection panel making a final recommendation to the Secretary of State—as I read the provision. That seems to be at odds with paragraph (a), which provides that the selection procedure will "include selection panels".
What is to be the role of the selection panels? I infer from the measure that it is only to make a recommendation to the Secretary of State. We know nothing about the composition of the panels; we do not know who will appoint them. However, we know—or I think we do—that all they will do is to make a recommendation to the Secretary of State, who will have the final say.
There is a rather unhealthy circularity in that process. I am not sure how much further forward it takes us. My hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins)


and the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) were more generous; they said that, while the process might not be perfect, it took us somewhat further. The more I ponder the matter, the less sure I am about that.

Mr. Hawkins: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a difference between my comments and those of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey? I was concentrating on the fact that the Government had been forced to make a concession; the hon. Gentleman said that the process was taking us in the right direction. I was rather less generous to the Government; my view is closer to that of my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Forth: I am always delighted to accept a lack of generosity to the Government. That is extremely appropriate in most circumstances that I can envisage. It is for the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey to decide how generous he will be; he is probably rather better disposed to the Government than we are.

Mr. Simon Burns: They are partners.

Mr. Forth: Indeed, all too often, they are partners. However, I shall not be drawn into that, Mr. Deputy Speaker; I shall resist any temptation placed in my way by my hon. Friends to elaborate on that point.
The amendment will not add much to the process, apart from additional doubt and bureaucracy—although it will undoubtedly add more time and personnel. As soon as we start making provision for selection panels, they will have to be staffed and supported and will be subject to procedures that require time. That not only requires money—no object, of course, to this Labour Government—but could add a further time dimension to the process that might, in some circumstances, be extremely disadvantageous.
We are talking about local boards and sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph (5) of the schedule reasonably requires that:
Regulations must provide … for the persons appointed to be representative of the local community in the board's area.
How satisfied will we be with those rather grand figures, appointed by the Lord Chancellor on one hand or by the Secretary of State on the other, who will be making important decisions whether or not they are advised by the selection panel? That is only an option—it is not mandatory; even if the selection panel comes into being and carries out its work, it can only make a recommendation to the Secretary of State. I admit that, in those circumstances, it would be unusual for a Secretary of State to ignore such advice, but it remains a possibility.
We must be extremely careful about such provisions. No doubt it is well meaning—as such provisions often are; it comes to us from another place, and one always has due regard for the views of its Members, who include a number of experts and legal minds. However, I wonder whether the provision will have anything like the beneficial or positive effect that was undoubtedly intended.
Will the Minister tell us more about the role of the panels? How does he envisage the working out of the relationship between the Secretary of State and the Lord Chancellor? If I read aright the inclination of his head earlier on, perhaps he will be able to reassure us that it would be unusual for the Secretary of State not to accept the recommendations of the panel. The hon. Gentleman's comments would help us to make progress on this matter.

Mr. Clappison: I am glad to be able to speak on the amendment, as the subject of the Bill is of great interest to me. I add my remarks to those made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins).
I agree with the general tenor of my hon. Friend's remarks. He especially adverted to the open question of who would be legally responsible if anything happened to someone serving a probation order or to someone resident in a probation hostel. He may want to ask the Minister a further question on legal liability: what is the legal liability to those who are affected by the behaviour of those who leave probation hostels?
My hon. Friend will be aware of at least one important case in our dusty memories of the law of negligence—the Home Office against the Dorset yacht club. That involved the legal liability of the occupants of the yacht club to people in the custody of the Home Office.

Mr. Hawkins: Like me, my hon. Friend is a member of the Bar and studied such cases—perhaps more years ago than either of us would care to remember. He is right to note that I had precisely that type of case in mind when I made my opening remarks. The liability of the chief officer appointed and of the person who appoints that officer is a vital issue. I am delighted that my hon. Friend, from his considerable experience both when he was an Opposition Home Office spokesman and as a member of the Bar, is putting pressure on the Government on that matter.

Mr. Clappison: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those remarks. I hate to point out that I have a certain amount of sympathy for some of the comments made by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), although I think that he was uncharacteristically—for a Liberal Democrat—generous to the Government. [HON. MEMBERS: "Uncharacteristically?"] I was being ironic.
There was a scintilla of truth in the hon. Gentleman's point about the volume of Home Office legislation that is being crammed before the House—including these amendments—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey strayed almost to the limits of my patience on that point, but I let him do so because he was relatively brief.

Mr. Clappison: Indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman was arguing that the matter should be properly examined so that it did not join the long list of previous failed Government measures, such as the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst correctly referred to the mechanics of the appointments. The relationship between the chief officer and the board will be important; it will affect the operation of the board in a particular area. It is similar to the relationship between the chief executive and the board of a company.
Clearly, the House of Lords originally had it in mind that the chief officer—the chief executive figure—should be appointed by the board itself; that would make an important difference to the relationship. The Government propose—as they so often do—that all appointments, including that of the chief officer, are to be made by them; the board would not be entrusted with the appointment of the chief officer. Does the amendment go far enough to ameliorate the centralisation created by the Government's top—down approach, which we see in this Bill and in so much legislation?

Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend is an expert in these matters. Does he know, from his reading of the amendment, who will appoint the selection panels? That is surely crucial and, furthermore, germane to the point he makes.

Mr. Clappison: My right hon. Friend touches on an important point: the independence of the selection panels and of those who serve on them. I hope I do not stray too far out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, by pointing out that this is one more example of the Government's top-down approach. We saw it recently with the Learning and Skills Act 2000, under which similar provisions mean that local learning and skills councils are not entrusted with the appointment of their chief executive—it all has to come down from the Secretary of State.
Does the amendment ameliorate that? How independent will the selection panels be? In response to my right hon. Friend, the Minister confirmed that the selection panels would be appointed by the Secretary of State. That being the case, we need to know what sort of people will sit on the selection panels. Will the Secretary of State keep a list of those who serve on selection panels? Will one selection panel deal with all appointments, or will a panel be specially set up each time a local board or a chief officer has to be appointed? We need to know.
4.30 pm
Paragraph 2(5) to schedule 1 states that "the persons appointed to" the board must
be representative of the local community.
If one selection panel covers the whole country and deals with each board, how can it fulfil that provision and have that sort of knowledge? Can we expect that it will guided by the one person who is appointed in each case by the Lord Chancellor's Department? The Minister needs to tell us more about that.
Who will sit on those panels and how independent will they be? That is what concerns us, given that such a centralised procedure is to be put in place. How independent will the local boards be? How independent will those who appoint the chief officers of probation and make such recommendations be, given the importance of the relationship between the chief officer and the local board? We need to hear a little more from the Minister, but I am not holding my breath.
I agree with the Minister that a national service would be created. In some ways, the Government have gone too far in the direction of creating a national service. However, I parted company from him when he said that reducing reoffending and protecting the public were part of the Government's objectives and were embodied in the amendment and provision. I honestly doubt whether the provisions will help to reduce reoffending. At the end of day, the same probation officers, with the same background and training, using the same orders as those available to them under criminal justice legislation, will deal with the same offenders. I realise how difficult it is for the probation service to deal with offenders.
Perhaps the intention is to create a national structure to provide national standards, and the Government's assumption is that that will have an effect in reducing crime nationally, but I am doubtful about that. If the provision represents an attempt to change the culture of the probation service, the Minister is misguided, because its culture has changed considerably in recent years; the Government are a bit behind the times. In any event, probation officers have to work with the offenders—or their clients, as they are sometimes called. That is an extremely difficult task.

Mr. Hawkins: My hon. Friend spoke about some of those issues in earlier debates and knows that many of them were covered in Committee, but does he agree that, in talking about the vital issue of the legal responsibility, one of the things that most outrages the public is the terminology? People are referred to as clients when they should be called offenders.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not within the scope of the amendment.

Mr. Clappison: I understand my hon. Friend's point, but I do not want to stray down that path, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The important issues are how much independence there will be in individual areas; how much scope there will be for local decision taking; and how much influence local boards can bring to bear on chief officers to deal with the problems in their areas. Given the Government's proposal, I doubt whether they will have the local discretion, that is so important. I doubt whether the amendment goes far enough in ameliorating the effect of the centralised structure that the Government have put in place. The amendment looks very much like a fig leaf.
I should like the Minister to say more about the arrangements for selection panels. Who will sit on them? My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst made the important point that all the procedures will cost money and require bureaucratic structures and services. When the selection panels have undertaken those processes, will the Home Secretary always accept their recommendations, or can he reject them and appoint someone he prefers? We need to know more because if the latter is the case, the amendment really is a fig leaf.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: This has been a useful debate. Many points have been made, and I shall attempt to deal with each of them. The hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) welcomed—albeit in a rather curmudgeonly fashion—the fact that the Government had
listened to the debate and had been prepared to propose some changes to the Bill. He recognised that the Home Secretary had sought to give reassurances on several matters.
It seems to me to be clear where the legal responsibility lies. The local probation board is the employer and will be a body corporate. The board therefore has all the usual liabilities of such an organisation. It will be responsible for any action that may arise in tort. Who appoints the chief officer is irrelevant to such matters. We are dealing with how a particular person is appointed to a job, and who or which legal person—a body corporate in this case—is liable if an action arises is a separate issue, so there need be no confusion. I hope that I can reassure the hon. Members for Surrey Heath and for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) that that is the case. I am not sure whether any great change is involved.
We agree that chief officers will be appointed in a new way, but we believe that the system is right for a different system—a national service. There is a difference of view between the Government and many Opposition Members about the way in which the Bill has developed. We have argued for the broad principles of a national service on other occasions. This is a particular amendment, so I shall not argue about whether there should be national or local control, but simply say that the Government have listened with care to the debate and have accepted that a panel should be set up and, therefore, that there should be a selection process. Nevertheless, the decision will finally rest with the Home Secretary.
The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) asked why the amendment contains the words:
in the case of the chief officer, for the board to be represented on any selection panel making a final recommendation to the Secretary of State.
He said that recommendations are not binding. Of course they are not binding. He rightly went on to say that the Secretary of State will take the final decision, but I emphasise that the Secretary of State must give full and proper consideration to a recommendation. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman it is usual to accept such a recommendation.
The right hon. Gentleman will know that any decision taken by a Secretary of State—or, indeed, any Minister—is subject to a test of reasonableness. Okay, it is Wednesbury unreasonableness, rather than reasonableness, and the Secretary of State must have a reason for not accepting the recommendation of the panel drawn up to conduct the interview.

Mr. Clappison: Is it not a little unrealistic of the Minister to suggest that a selection panel appointed by the Home Secretary would take him to judicial review, saying that he had behaved unreasonably? Could not provision be made for the Home Secretary to explain his decision if it were different from the recommendation of his own selection panel?

Mr. O'Brien: Like me, the hon. Gentleman is a lawyer and he knows full well that a person who has a locus in a case may be able to challenge the Secretary of State's decision. That need not be done by the board.
The hon. Gentleman's view may not be without foundation. A board appointed by the Home Office and the Secretary of State is probably unlikely to take the Secretary of State to court. If we look back into the realms of administrative law, we may find that that has happened. However, a challenge is more likely to be made by someone who is not appointed. There may be others who, for a particular reason, might also want to make a challenge.

Mr. Hawkins: I do not wish to criticise the Minister for this, but he might be short-circuiting his own argument. He refers to Wednesbury unreasonableness, but our debates can now be examined in the light of the Pepper v. Hart ruling. Those of us who are lawyers, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) and myself, may understand the concept of Wednesbury unreasonableness, but my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and my hon. Friends the Members for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) and for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) will not be familiar with it. The Minister should explain the concept, not least for those outside who take a great interest in these procedures.

Mr. Forth: And for the record.

Mr. Hawkins: Yes, and for the record. The Minister should explain exactly what he is talking about. I understand him, but I am not sure that those reading his words will.

Mr. O'Brien: As the hon. Gentleman will know, Wednesbury unreasonableness would refer to the Secretary of State making a totally unreasonable or crackers decision. He is not entitled to do that, or make a decision that is so arbitrary that it is contrary to the weight of all the evidence before him. To that extent, as I said to the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst—as a former Minister, he is probably aware of this legal issue—there are controls on the way in which a Secretary of State would have to respond to a decision on the appointment of a panel and on the recommendations that come from that panel.
I also make it clear to the hon. Member for Surrey Heath that the Pepper v. Hart ruling is relevant only to cases in which there is ambiguity. I hope that the drafting of parliamentary draftsmen does not give rise to a level ambiguity that would cause the ministerial statements that are covered by Pepper v. Hart to be dragged into the argument.

Mr. Hawkins: I heard my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) criticise the way in which a Bill that we considered earlier this week had been drafted. I do not want to return to that argument because you would rule me out of order if I did, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I think that the Minister is being a little complacent in suggesting that parliamentary draftsmen could never produce anything that was ambiguous. Conservative Members are concerned about this issue because the current Home Secretary frequently gets involved in decisions that we would regard as crackers—to use the Minister's own word. For example, the Home Secretary got into terrible trouble yesterday for calling for a British football team. Most of the British population thought that idea was crackers.

Mr. O'Brien: If I followed the hon. Gentleman's example and discussed a British football team I would soon be ruled out of order, so I shall not do that.
Rulings such as Pepper v. Hart were made because there is, on occasion, ambiguity in legislation. We all understand that. I was dealing with an issue raised by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst who asked me to clarify the issue of recommendation. I have sought to do that by setting out how I interpret that provision.
4.45 pm
The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) expressed some general concerns about the Bill. I understand them but I shall not go down that route, because this is a specific amendment. The hon. Gentleman referred to the number of Home Office Bills of which this is one. This is a modernising Bill, and modernising our criminal justice system is a substantial process. We inherited a system that was very old-fashioned, and we have had many debates with the forces of reaction who have opposed some of the changes that we have made. Perhaps that is a necessary process.
The appointment of the chief probation officer is important and almost unique. In many ways, the service is unique. The position is clear to us. The board is responsible for service delivery, and the chief officer is a member of the board and he has executive responsibility for the delivery of the service. The Secretary of State will appoint the chief officer, who will help to make board policy. If there is a dispute, the Secretary of State can direct the whole board. That is how we shall deal with conflicts of interest and conflicts of policy.
The membership of the board is a straightforward issue. It is intended that it will be able to make reasonable and straightforward decisions about the people who are selected. Selection will not just take place across the whole country, because there will be local boards, but the main board will include a national director designate, the chairmen designate of each area who are to be appointed, an independent diversity adviser and an independent assessor. Such people are likely to be on it.
The hon. Member for Hertsmere asked me about the judge who will be appointed by the Lord Chancellor. The judge is there by statute and reflects the current position on appointments. On the hon. Gentleman's point about magistrates, we intend that regulations will provide for a certain proportion of magistrates to be involved in the process of appointment and selection. I hope that that deals with that point.

Mr. Clappison: If the Home Secretary overrules the selection panel and appoints someone as a chief officer of probation whom it has not recommended, that may affect people's confidence in the appointment. Under what circumstances might the Home Secretary exercise that power to overrule the recommendation?

Mr. O'Brien: I have said a fair amount about that and have followed the route laid out by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst. The Secretary of State is likely to accept a recommendation unless he has good reason not to. That would be the normal process, as the right hon. Gentleman said. I cannot take the issue further than that.

Mr. Hawkins: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. O'Brien: Yes, but I have been on my feet for some time and I am anxious to make progress after I have given way.

Mr. Hawkins: The Minister is aware that we are not under any great time pressure, as this debate is one of the few in national guillotine week that is not guillotined.
On appointments and the choice of lay magistrates, which was one of the most important points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere, does the Minister accept that it is of huge concern to the Magistrates Association and its members and to the Association of Magisterial Offices? There is a strong belief, which we have articulated in debates on this Bill and on many other occasions, that the Government are constantly downgrading the role of lay magistrates. Magistrates, their clerks and our constituents are very concerned about that and we want to ensure that magistrates have a proper role. The selection of magistrates is vital.

Mr. O'Brien: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says and no doubt we will bear those concerns in mind.
The hon. Member for Hertsmere complained about a top-down process. We are creating a modern national probation service. The hon. Gentleman might have a different idea about how we should do that, but we are making our approach clear, whether or not he agrees with it. I do not accept the description of that process as top-down. We are trying to create a service that will better deliver the quality assurance that the public need on the ability of the service to reduce reoffending. That is the key test and the basis on which the public will judge the reforms. We want to ensure that the national service will provide consistent standards and adherence to offender programmes, which we hope will be proved to work. There is a wide disparity in the enforcement of sentences, as demonstrated by the audits undertaken by the Association of Chief Probation Officers. We need to deal with such issues.
The hon. Gentleman said that many of the same people will be in the service in future, and that may well be the case. However, as he also said, it is important that cultures change. He is right to say that the culture in the probation service has been changing for the better—and very much so. That process will continue and be enhanced by our reforms. It will give greater focus to the work that is under way and also deal with the disparities and differences between areas, some of which are very good and some of which are less so. The changes can raise the general standard of probation service delivery.
The hon. Gentleman asked who will serve on the selection panels. I have identified some members, but we must bear it in mind that the Nolan procedures are part of the general process of making Government appointments. The aim is not just to appoint the great and the good who arise out of nowhere, but to follow a more open and considered process, as set out by Nolan. As for being guided by the judge, I am sure that members of the selection panel will give appropriate weight to the judge's opinion, but it is not their role to decide legal issues. The judge will be able to reflect an awareness of the way in which the courts operate, but we are concerned about the selection of someone who can fulfil the role of an


executive running a local probation service. The opinions of people who have a more appropriate understanding of how to make appointments will also be given due and appropriate weight.
The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst referred to paragraph 2(4) of schedule 1—I misunderstood him at first and thought that he was referring to paragraph 3(4). He is right about appointments, but we shall make regulations, although the Bill says only that we may do so. I am not going to give him an undertaking to that effect, but that is our intention.
I am being advised that the selection panels will not always include a judge. To make the position clear for the hon. Member for Hertsmere, sometimes magistrates will be on them.

Mr. Hawkins: I am grateful to the Minister for correcting his earlier answer, and I realise that he is receiving messages. I want to be clear whether, in order that all hon. Members may be aware of who sits on the panels, the Minister is prepared to undertake today regularly to put details of membership in the Library. There has been quite a lot of debate on that point. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst and my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere and I think that the matter, which was pursued in Committee, is important. I hope that our asking the Minister to reassure us that information on appointments will be placed in the Library on a continuing basis will not be too great a burden on the taxpayer.

Mr. O'Brien: The appointment of anyone to any panel or organisation will be subject to freedom of information legislation.

Mr. Hawkins: There must be a request.

Mr. O'Brien: That is not so under freedom of information legislation. Under the Act, the probation service, like any public authority, will be obliged to have a system for ensuring the publication of information; it will have to have mechanisms for that. The sort of information that will be provided will be considered under that legislation in the normal way.
Public authorities will probably make much of the information available on the internet. It would no doubt be possible to access the internet from the Library. The hon. Gentleman asked whether information on membership would always be available. I am saying that if such national probation service information is available under the freedom of information legislation, it will be accessible. I do not know whether a piece of paper needs always to be put in the Library. That would be operating in an era in which the hon. Gentleman and I grew up. That era has gone; information can now be accessed differently.

Mr. Hawkins: The Minister is talking about provisions in the Freedom of Information Bill—or Act, as it will become. Neither a Labour Freedom of Information Bill—or, as it was perhaps more accurately called in debate earlier

in the week, the Freedom from Information Bill—nor the internet is a substitute for the responsibilities of Her Majesty's Government to this House and its Members.

Mr. Forth: Certainly not for all of us.

Mr. Hawkins: I hear my right hon. Friend pointing out that it is not sufficient for all hon. Members that information is accessible on the internet. I ask the Minister specifically to ensure that details of membership of selection panels, which have been a matter of party political controversy, will be placed in the Library. That is the undertaking that I am looking for because a number of my right hon. and hon. Friends are not persuaded by new Labour's obsession with the internet as a substitute for everything. We think it is important that the Government abide by their responsibilities to Parliament, which Ministers of this Government have so often forgotten.

Mr. O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman is much too curmudgeonly. I was attempting to help him by saying that not only is it likely that information will be available, but that any member of the public should be able to access it. I shall go further and remind him that, as a Member of Parliament, he has right of access to information about anything that the Government do, subject to all the usual caveats about security and so forth. No doubt, he makes use of the parliamentary questions procedure from day to day. There is no reason why, in relation to the public interest, information on the selection panel for the probation service could not be placed in the House of Commons Library. However, some people might have a less than charitable interest in the probation service and those who appoint its members in particular localities. I am sure that that information could be made available to Members of Parliament and I suspect that it would be available to any member of the public. I need more time to consider the hon. Gentleman's concern, but I undertake to write to him and send a copy of the letter to the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst. That should provide the hon. Gentleman with the reassurance that he wants.
5 pm
I shall now deal with the matter raised by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, who said that it looks as though the selection procedures will cost a lot of money and that, of course, money is no object to the Government. I am sure that he realises that the public finances were in a mess when we inherited them from the previous Government. We are now sorting them out and are dealing with what was a serious problem for the previous Government. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman about that, but would not go so far as to say that money is no object. Certainly, however, the public finances are now in a better state, and I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving me the chance to make that point.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 135, in schedule 1, in page 48, line 18, at end insert

("(though they may manage it)")

Mr. Mike O'Brien: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in their amendment in lieu of Lords amendment No. 135.
The amendment makes it clear that local probation boards will manage land even though they cannot own it. During the passage of the Bill, there were many discussions here and in another place about who should manage the land and the buildings that the probation service will occupy. The other place tabled an amendment to enable local boards to own and manage land with the approval of the Secretary of State. The Government were reluctant to go down that route, as we believe that all land occupied by the probation service should be owned centrally.
Local boards should not spend their time discussing whether they wish to buy, sell and administer land. Instead, they ought to discuss how to prevent reoffending and protect the public. We had a certain view about how the boards should spend their time, but have listened carefully to the debate and have always made it clear that those occupying certain premises should be responsible for their day-to-day management. The amendment that the Lords accepted in lieu of their original amendment makes that clear, and is consistent with the position that the House has taken all along. I commend the amendment to the House.

Mr. Burns: I accept the Minister's point about buildings, but will he explain more about the land that is involved and the purpose for which it is used?

Mr. O'Brien: The probation service has land for offices and the courses that it runs. If it had the resources, it might feel that it could purchase land on which it could run a scheme. For example, it might want to purchase garage land on which it could run training courses. Alternatively, it might want land on which to build classroom accommodation. Various possibilities, therefore, could result from the probation service wanting to engage in the ownership and management of land.
We were reluctant that boards should become too involved in that process. I do not think that other parties would disagree that the prime objective of the National Probation Service is to prevent reoffending. That should be the focus of boards' discussion.

Mr. Clappison: Do any of the current probation committees hold land in the sense in which that term is used in the Bill? If so, will they be required by the Bill to divest themselves of that land?

Mr. O'Brien: I am afraid that my knowledge of the extent of the ownership of land by the various local probation boards is limited. Officials are nodding to indicate that there is some ownership. As I said, we intend boards to spend their time not managing or owning land, but preventing reoffending. In future, the probation service will ensure that it deals with what constituents of the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) and my own constituents in North Warwickshire want it to tackle.
People want the service to prevent reoffending. I would be surprised if the hon. Member for Hertsmere were approached by constituents who said that they wanted the board of their local probation service to spend its time managing land. That would apply whether or not it owned the land, although I suspect that the probation service does not own much land and I am not aware of any particular examples of such ownership. However, I do not want to

suggest to the hon. Gentleman that there are no instances in which a current local board owns some land, as I suspect that somebody somewhere might well have entered into an agreement for the purchase of land.
The hon. Member for Hertsmere asked what would happen in respect of such ownership. The source of the resources for the land and the circumstances under which it was owned would have to be examined. The hon. Gentleman can work through the legal points, just as I can. I suspect that, in a number of cases, resources will have been provided by a local county council. In such circumstances, the land would be likely to revert to those who had paid for it. However, that will depend on the particular local circumstances that apply. Those are broad legal principles and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman can understand them.

Mr. Burns: Will the Under-Secretary give way?

Mr. O'Brien: I was attempting to finish, but I shall give way once more.

Mr. Burns: Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I am not a lawyer, so I should like to clear up a point that is causing me further confusion. Paragraph 13(1) of schedule 1 states that
a local board may do anything which appears to it to be necessary or expedient for the purpose of, or in connection with, the exercise of its functions.
Paragraph 13(2) states:
That includes, in particular—
(a) holding property. The Lords amendment would, of course, add management of land to that provision. I understand that, but paragraph 13(3) states:
But a local board—
(a) may not hold land.
That seems to contradict paragraph (2).

Mr. O'Brien: Property can be owned for a period, as it will not necessarily be land. It can vary. If I remember rightly, land is defined in the Law of Property Act 1925. As I have repeatedly said, the Government aim to ensure that the local boards do not spend a lot of their time managing land. Of course, they will hold various sorts of property. Substantial evidence, supported by the national conditions survey of probation accommodation, suggests that probation land is generally not well managed. For example, there is high overcapacity in accommodation across the current probation estate, a large part of which is deemed unsuitable for present or future purposes. That applies to as much as 30 per cent. of the estate. There is also significant over-staffing on estate management. According to the national conditions survey of probation accommodation, the level of over-staffing could be as much as 75 per cent. There are inefficiencies in the use of resources across the estate. There is a significant number of undocumented occupations and approximately £;30 million is required to bring the estate up to standard. In its present state, the property—that which is occupied, and, in a small number of cases, owned by the probation service—is probably unattractive for the private finance initiative. The aim is to ensure that that is dealt with on a much more centralised basis or that property should revert


to those who previously owned it so that the probation service can focus on those matters with which the hon. Gentleman's constituents and mine want it to deal.
References to property can mean anything from a paperclip and a pencil, but land usually means land with buildings. A person may lease a building but not necessarily own the freehold of the land on which it rests. That is an important distinction. The main aim of centralising ownership and management of the probation estate is to allow accounting responsibility to be placed squarely where it should be, which is on the Government. As a result, there will be better control of investment, procurement and development, thus making best use of the probation service's assets. It will be part of the wider civil estate and derive benefits from that. Cost savings will be achieved as a result of economies of scale and rationalisation, perhaps involving the sharing of accommodation where appropriate. There will also be greater effectiveness in the delivery of building and management services, which can benefit the probation service and other public sector organisations.
I repeat that the objective is to ensure that the new boards and service managers concentrate on delivery of their core functions and are not distracted by matters relating to real estate.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The Minister makes the argument well, but does the Secretary of State for Health have the power to direct health authorities or trusts to dispose of property to streamline the estate, and does the Home Secretary have the power to direct police authorities to get rid of property in order to achieve a more streamlined result and to save money? I do not think they do, and, if they do not, there is no logical reason why the probation service should have such a power and no local responsibility.

Mr. O'Brien: I have just set out why we need more centralised control. There is a serious problem with the present quality of accommodation. There is overcapacity and some dilapidation. We need to be able to benefit from economies of scale, so we take the view that the probation service should be run differently. Whether the NHS is run in the same way and whether the Secretary of State has a particular power is completely irrelevant. We seek to deal with the matter in a sensible and straightforward way to ensure that taxpayers, who put so many resources into the probation service, obtain the value for money that they deserve. The National Probation Service requires a measure of central control in the way in which its property and land is administered, so that the boards can concentrate on what we want them to do.

Mr. Hawkins: When the Minister said in reply to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) that the matter was perfectly straightforward, he was a little wide of the mark. My right hon. and hon. Friends and the hon. Gentleman, by their careful and skilful probing, have revealed how opaque is the Minister's thinking. Indeed, they hit on the very grave concern that several Opposition Members expressed in Committee. The issue arose in the first place because, during our probing in Committee, it was made clear that those few words—which are, on the surface, apparently

innocuous—reveal the Government's overall strategy towards Home Office matters and many others. They want to centralise and have all the control themselves.
5.15 pm
In particular, they want to grab all control and ownership of land. I and many other hon. Members come across exactly the same issue in our constituencies all the time. The Treasury, with its grasping hands, is keen to seize ownership of land and control it centrally so that it can be sold off. That is part of the Government's cynical attempt to raise funds and to build up their war chest.

Mr. Stephen Pound: Crikey, they've rumbled us!

Mr. Hawkins: The hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound), a wise observer of his party and, in particular, of the Treasury Bench, points out, from a sedentary position, that I have rumbled them. We have rumbled the Government; we are making an entirely serious point.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), my hon. Friends the Members for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) and for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) and others are aware that, with regard to Ministry of Defence land, for example, there has been a programme, since the Government came to power, of sales, undoubtedly to the detriment of our armed forces, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer wishes to build up a war chest. Mr. Deputy Speaker, you would call me to order if I spent too long developing my thesis with regard to other Departments. We are concerned with the Home Office.

Mr. Clappison: On these provisions, does my hon. Friend share the sneaking feeling, which I get when the Minister speaks about overcapacity, that we are being softened up? Is it not more often the case that probation officers are crying out for accommodation in which to put young people who are often in trouble?

Mr. Hawkins: Absolutely.

Mr. Forth: That involves sell-offs and redundancies.

Mr. Hawkins: As my right hon. Friend rightly says, that involves sell-offs and redundancies. The Government's approach is a cynical ploy.
The Minister's increasingly desperate attempt to reconcile the obviously irreconcilable text that was wisely spotted by my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford simply showed that it is impossible to justify such incredibly sloppy drafting. The Government are determined not to allow any local ownership of land because they want to keep control so that, as soon as the Chancellor wants more ready cash, the land can be flogged off. That would be to the detriment of local probation services and of offenders whom the probation service is trying to reform.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman's comments are becoming increasingly bizarre. Is he really suggesting that when there is clear evidence of overcapacity and of taxpayers not getting value for money, the Government


should not make efforts to ensure that taxpayers get value for money, and that the resources saved should not be directed to programmes to prevent reoffending? Is it Conservative party policy to ensure that taxpayers do not get value for money and that money goes into buildings rather than being used to ensure that criminals do not reoffend? That would be bizarre.

Mr. Hawkins: The Minister has got to be terribly careful. He was not listening to what I said. We do not—we never would—accept his word that there is overcapacity. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst and my hon. Friends the Members for Hertsmere and for West Chelmsford pointed out that all we have in this context is the Minister's claim that there is overcapacity, which we do not accept. My county probation service tells me that it is constantly strapped for cash, especially in the shire counties of the south-east, which my hon. Friends and I represent. The probation service has been strapped for cash because the Government deliberately targeted funding at their friends in the north and the midlands, and in Scotland and Wales. They have undoubtedly left all the authorities in the shire counties, including the probation service, short of money to do the job they are supposed to do.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: I regret that the hon. Gentleman feels that he must make a personal slight, and I am sure that on reflection he will realise that it is inappropriate. I said in my initial statement on this amendment that the national conditions survey of probation accommodation had identified a 16.8 per cent. overcapacity. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will now feel that it is appropriate to withdraw his personal comment about me, and accept that there is other evidence.

Mr. Hawkins: I hear what the Minister says, but I am afraid that we do not accept at face value a survey that states that there is overcapacity. In our democracy, we have such debates to test whether the Government's statistics are correct. During the 18 years for which we were in government, Labour Opposition spokesmen constantly attacked our statistics and my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Conservative Government Front Bench. They would not accept our phrases and words. I am not attacking the Minister in his personal capacity, but specifically and directly in his ministerial capacity. We do not accept what he says about overcapacity, and all my right hon. and hon. Friends from shire counties know the reality. The Government are deliberately penalising our authorities over their probation services, as they do over everything else.

Mr. Clappison: I think that I can help my hon. Friend. Does he recollect a time in the previous Parliament when the present Prime Minister was the shadow Home Secretary and complained about a shortage of accommodation for young people in trouble? He called in particular for the creation of more secure accommodation places, without delay, to use his words.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I advise the House to come back to the terms of the amendment, rather than have a general debate.

Mr. Hawkins: I accept your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but this amendment in lieu relates to the question

of land. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere rightly pointed out that during the previous Parliament, the present Prime Minister, when he was shadow Home Secretary, attacked the Conservative Government because of a shortage of land and buildings specifically for the probation service, including facilities for looking after young offenders. I think that I can appropriately reply to my hon. Friend without going out of order, by saying that he has a good point.
It is important to recognise that we are challenging the Government on their amendment in lieu, and particularly its sloppy and contradictory drafting, because we do not accept their statistics. We do not think that in three and a half years of a Labour Government we have gone from the shortage that the Prime Minister previously attacked to an overcapacity.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman prefaced his remarks by saying that he accepted my ruling, then he ignored it. I do not admire that, and I ask him to respect the Chair's rulings. The issue before us concerns ownership and management.

Mr. Hawkins: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I shall move on. I shall return to the important point that my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford raised in an intervention.
The wording of the amendment in lieu is contradictory. The schedule that the Government propose to amend entails a contradiction in terms. We are back to the same issues that we discussed on another Bill during national guillotine week, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) pointed out that, under pressure, the Government and those who advise them have resorted to desperation tactics and have produced self-contradictory amendments. We have a right to debate them and to challenge the drafting, especially when the terms of the amendments seem, on the face of it, to be contradictory.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am not disputing the hon. Gentleman's right, I am merely urging him to get on with it.

Mr. Hawkins: I am endeavouring to do so, and I shall bring my remarks to a close in a moment.
My right hon. and hon. Friends who have intervened on the Minister have revealed the severe problems and contradictions in the Government's choice of wording. We think that there is a weakness. This issue has not suddenly emerged today: it was explored at some length in Committee—I took the Bill through its Committee stage. The Government will recognise that this matter has been debated at some length, because there is a serious issue about whether local autonomy should prevail. We have always felt that local probation services have a serious duty to perform, and that their responsibilities should not be unduly restricted, and that includes their ability to own and manage land.
I think that I speak for probation services the length and breadth of the country. I know that I have raised the concerns of my own county probation service, and my right hon. and hon. Friends may want to pursue the issue further on behalf of their probation services.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I could not have predicted that what might be described as the "last knockings" of our debate—although I do not wish to be disparaging about the part of the Bill that we are discussing—would generate such heat and drama. Similarly, had I consulted the week's programme, little would I have thought that the serried ranks of all the parties would be present for a major set-piece debate on what is clearly a central issue. In fact, to be honest, I do not think it is that; but it raises one important principle, and one supplementary drafting point.
Like the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins), I think that, ultimately, the draftsmen missed a trick. I am not making a huge point, but let us look at the schedule. The paragraph dealing with the ancillary powers of the probation service provides for
directions given by the Secretary of State
and then states that
a local board may do anything which appears to it to be necessary or expedient
—including holding property, and so on. However, the paragraph goes on to say that the board "may not hold land". Surely if the drafting had produced the words "may hold property but not land", we would have got it right in the first place—but I suspect that the Bill will not be amended perfectly before it becomes law, and I doubt that it is the first Bill that will have been passed without being perfectly drafted.
Let me now deal with my substantive point, and draw attention to one example and one principle. Around the corner from my constituency office is a building run by the probation service. As it happens, I do not know who owns the building—had I realised that this would be such a big debate, I would have walked around the corner and asked—but it has been in probation service use for as long as I have been a Member of Parliament and probably before, and is well used. It is not a residential building; it is a building for day use—for training, and so forth.
Let us imagine that the probation service rents that building from another owner, in either the private or the public sector. Let us imagine that there comes a time when the owner says, "I am going to sell the building. Either you buy it from me, or I will sell it to someone else. You can have the freehold, but I am afraid that if you do not take it, I will not provide another lease on it; I will get rid of it."
In that event, the local board would have no power to buy the building. It would be subject to the central control that the Minister says is necessary so that the estate can be rationalised. The local board may not persuade the probation service of the intrinsic value of the building in the sense that, in the board's view, it is in a good location, has been fitted out well or has worked well for the client base. Ultimately, the board may have to say to the owner, "We are sorry, but we cannot buy the building"—whereupon the owner will say, "I am sorry, but in that case I will sell it, because I am not willing to give you a further lease". I feel that the "strict central control" argument may often militate against the interest of the local service.
I am not in a position to dispute the figures given by the Minister relating to the survey's findings in regard to overcapacity, but I am sure that the same argument could be advanced in respect of the national health service. The NHS certainly has a great deal of land that is not being

fully used. The argument could be advanced in respect of the police and education, and I am sure that it could still be advanced in respect of public highways, where a lot of space that was not being fully used has been acquired for purposes of road-building and the like. Although the railways are no longer in the public sector, it used to be possible to advance the argument in that context, because huge amounts of land were not being used. Anyway, in public policy terms, the argument could be relevant in many areas.
All that I say to the Government is this: it strikes me that we are removing a flexibility that may be to the advantage of the local services. The fact is that what may work in, say, Surrey, or in London, may not work in Durham, Cleveland, Powys or Gwent.
The whole idea of having a local service is that it is a service intended to respond to local needs. In that sense, it is different from the prison service. The Prison Service does not work on the basis that everyone goes to prison near where they live. The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office, who is present now—probably waiting for the next debate—has a prison in his county town, the city of Nottingham. He will know that not everyone in Nottingham prison is a Nottinghamshire resident. The basis on which the Prison Service works is that, depending on people's prison needs, they may be sent to a high-security prison at the other end of the country, or they may be imprisoned locally.
5.30 pm
It does not work like that in the probation service. People do not suddenly say, "You're on probation. We're going to send you to Westmorland, although you live on the Walworth road." Nor do they say in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), "Here you are in Somerton, but we've decided that you'll report every Saturday morning in Surrey." It is a local service, and there is a very strong argument that there should be flexibility in a local probation service. It seems unnecessary to restrict that.
I end by linking together the two points. We could always provide the Secretary of State with a reserve power to direct, and to intervene when a continuing dispute between a local board and the national service cannot be resolved. Therefore, it is unnecessary to bar the local probation service from owning land.
The new Lords amendment seems less satisfactory, and it would perhaps be better to stick to the original one. I wonder whether it might not be better to ask the House to vote on the matter—so that the serried ranks of hon. Members waiting to vote can do so, the Government can be overthrown, and we can have a little more excitement before Parliament rises.

Mr. Burns: I do not wish to detain the House for long—not only because I do not wish to test your patience, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but because of an earlier intervention by the Minister in which he sought to be helpful in allaying my concerns. However—this is not a criticism of him—as I told him in an earlier intervention, I am not a lawyer and do not have a lawyer's mind, and I am still confused and concerned about the drafting of paragraph 13 of schedule 1, which seems to be contradictory. If I explain in some detail my concern


and confusion, perhaps the Minister, with his razor-sharp lawyer's mind, will be able to assure a layman that the Government's intentions are quite logical.
As I understand it, if the Government accept the Lords amendment in lieu, schedule 1, paragraph 13(3)(a) will provide:
But a local board—
(a) may not hold land though they may manage it.
To my simple mind, that is completely obvious and understandable. Then, paragraph 13(1) quite clearly states:
a local board may do anything which appears to it to be necessary or expedient for the purpose of, or in connection with, the exercise of its functions.
The confusion for me arises when one goes to schedule 1 paragraph 13(2)(a), which states:
That includes, in particular—
(a) holding property.
Earlier, the Minister said—I think that this is commonly accepted—that the terms "property" and "land" are synonymous. Some people may feel that property is the actual building on land, but it is the land and the building. Some property is just land, whereas other property is land with buildings on it.
If that is a correct analysis of the word "property", surely paragraph 13(2)(a) is contradicted by 13(3)(a). The paragraph seems to be saying both that the board may hold property and that a local board may not hold land. I just cannot understand the logic of that.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: It might be helpful if I deal with the point now rather than in my reply. "Property" is a broad term that includes both land and things from computers to pencils. The provision is not inconsistent. It says that all types of property may be held, but land may not be held. That is the type of property that the board may not hold. The board may hold other types of property, from pencils to computers. Although it may also hold a lease, it cannot own freehold. Thus the board will not be in the business of dealing with the purchase and sale of freehold land or long leases involving land. Additionally, it may well be renting premises. So, although it will need to manage land, it cannot own it.

Mr. Burns: I am grateful to the Minister, but I am not altogether wiser. I am trying to think of the implications of what he has just said. I understood him to say that those involved may manage property and land, but may not own it. I understand that, but why does the Bill say that they may hold property but not land? I do not see the difference. Is the word "hold" legalese for own, rather than manage? If so, I will finally understand the point.

Mr. O'Brien: "Hold" will mean owning land or owning a right in land. The difficulty, as lawyers will understand, is that land law is essentially a legal fiction or structure. It is a creation of a way of ownership that is based on an understanding of the difference between legal ownership and equitable ownership. There are different ways in which land may be owned: some legal, some equitable. If I tried to explain it, I would confuse the hon. Gentleman even more, which I do not want to do.

Mr. Burns: The Minister is absolutely right. We will not move the debate forward if I pursue this narrow point.

This is a badly drafted proposal, unless one is a lawyer. I hope that it will not provide a rich seam for lawyers to benefit from in future years.
The Minister has said that the probation service cannot own land. It can have a lease or manage land, but cannot own it. Does that mean that the land that the probation service currently owns will have to be divested so as to comply with the Bill?

Mr. O'Brien: indicated assent.

Mr. Burns: The Minister helpfully nods; that raises a number of questions.

Mr. Clappison: The Minister's justification for his proposal is that owning land would distract the probation service. Will not the probation boards now have the distraction of selling land?

Mr. Burns: My hon. Friend makes a telling point. The Minister said that the probation service can manage properties but cannot own them. Surely that will be a distraction in its own right.
I wish to return to the narrow point about the selling off of properties and land currently owned by the probation service, which, once the Bill comes into force, will be illegal for them to hold. I assume—this thought has only just entered my head on the hoof, so to speak—that there will be provisions in the Bill for a timetable for the probation service to divest itself of the land, so that it would not, for example, be acting illegally by still owning land if the Bill were to become the law of the land a week today. I am sure that the Government have realised that there will have to be a time lag to avoid such potential embarrassment and self-inflicted damage.

Mr. Hawkins: Might not it assist those who report our proceedings if my hon. Friend were to reflect further on the phrase that he employed when he said that something had entered his head on the hoof?

Mr. Burns: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that helpful and pertinent intervention. However, I do not want to test your patience, Madam Deputy Speaker, so I shall return to the Bill.
I am not quite sure why selling off the land is so necessary as part and parcel of the schedule. I do not see an absolute need for the service not to own land. If it can manage its own property and land, why cannot it own them? From a longterm, Treasury point of view—the Government make so many criticisms of short-termism that one would think that they would welcome a long-term view—land and property prices generally appreciate in value. The probation service, as the freeholder of the land, will lose an asset that would otherwise appreciate in value, if it has to sell it.
What will be the mechanisms for selling off the land? The probation service might, for example, operate in a town in which it owned facilities, properties and land ideal for its uses. The property might even be purpose built and therefore unattractive for land developers to buy, demolish and redevelop. Why should the probation service go through the agony of the fruitless exercise of selling off its property under the provisions of the schedule, then have to look elsewhere to rent or acquire
similar property or land in order to carry out its duties? That would be a false economy, and rather—1 am trying to think of a parliamentary term—foolish. Perhaps the Minister would like to put me out of my agony by explaining this now.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman makes some interesting points. However, if we were proposing to do what he suggests, he would be right—it would be foolish. We are not expecting the probation service to sell the land, then try to buy it back. Under clause 19, an order may be made to vest the land in the Home Secretary, who would then be able to administer it centrally. The offices that the local probation services currently occupy would continue to be their offices. The services would just not have the job of owning them—that would be done centrally by the Crown estate.

Mr. Burns: The matter is becoming clearer. The Minister is saying that, under the clause, the probation service will not be allowed to own the land or property. However, rather than being sold off to the private sector to make a profit, the land will be shuffled from the probation service to the Home Secretary. The ownership will then be transferred to the Home Office or to the Government body with responsibility for buildings.

Mr. O'Brien: A further point is that some land may be sold off because, if the number of local organisations reduces from 20 to eight, there will be some overcapacity by reason of that change. Therefore, there may be sales at some point, but they will be done centrally.

Mr. Burns: Presumably, on that basis, the Minister assumes that the majority of the land and property will go to the Home Office, with only a relatively small proportion being sold off to the private sector.
I wonder, on reflection, whether it is all worth it. I am unaware that the probation service has encountered the worry and concern of managing its estate, among the many pressures on its time, duties and functions. It seems slightly pointless and a waste of time to shuffle around the ownership of property and land. I suppose that it is the Government's desire for modernisation that leads them to tidy up the system and concentrate the ownership at the centre, rather than around the country. However, as the Minister said about another aspect of this debate, that is Government policy. We may not like it, but they are perfectly entitled to do so. Whether it works is another matter.
Presumably, there will be sufficient staff and trained people to ensure that the land and property that is shuffled to the central Government estate is managed properly. Does the Minister anticipate conflict between the probation service and the management at the centre? Are there proper procedures by which to ensure a smooth transition and the effective and smooth management of the estate, without leading to friction and, ironically, distraction? If the probation service is no longer directly responsible for its estate, any conflict or problem could become extremely distracting.
I understand that the Minister does not want to sort out all my points as we go along, but I would be grateful if he could enlighten us in his winding-up speech.

Mr. David Heath: I rise to make a very short speech, Madam Deputy Speaker, as I am sure you will be pleased to hear. I simply want to question the Minister on one point. He referred to the reversion of land at present held by the probation service to a local authority—a county council or metropolitan authority. I am not clear what mechanism would apply for that purpose. I looked carefully at clauses 18 and 19, which contain a mechanism whereby land that is at present vested within the probation service can be taken into the ownership of the Crown Estate Commissioners or the Home Office. That extends further in that land owned by a local authority can, by the same mechanism, be moved directly to the Home Office.
I am not clear about land that has been acquired by a probation committee. Such a committee is not cognate with the local authority; as I know to my cost, having been leader of Somerset county council, it is a precepting authority. There seemed to be an ever-increasing bill from the probation service which the local authority was powerless to amend and it was simply a question of paying whatever the probation committee decided. That money, whether it was revenue or capital, was then entirely within the province of the probation committee, to spend as it saw fit. I am not aware that land that was then owned by the probation committee was retained in the ownership of the local authority. Therefore, how could land that was owned by the probation committee revert to a local authority that had never owned it? If land had been acquired for the specific purposes of such a committee, would the metropolitan authority or county council ever have had any title to enable the land to revert to its ownership? If that were not the case, the Bill would need to provide a specific mechanism. I see no such mechanism.
I see the Minister nodding confidently. I am sure that he will give me a satisfactory answer in his reply.

Mr. Clappison: The issue before us is whether probation boards, as they will be, will be allowed to own land or merely to manage it. The Minister's explanation of the Government's reasons for pursuing that course, and of why they are reluctant to allow the boards to own land, takes some swallowing. The Government are trying to prevent probation boards from being distracted by the ownership of land. That would seem a strange explanation if it were given in any other walk of life, with any other organisation in the public or the private sector. It is made even more strange by the fact that, under schedule 1(13)(2) the probation boards can hold property other than land, enter into contracts, invest sums and accept gifts. They can do all those things, which are apparently not distractions, but they are not allowed to own their own property—their own land.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) made a fair point when he said that, in legal terms, this is a confusing use of the word "property", since property is usually synonymous with land: indeed, the law relating to land is the Law of Property Act 1925. For the purposes of the Bill, however, the word does not apparently have that meaning.
Why are the probation boards not to be allowed to own land? The Minister gave us the real reason when he referred to clause 19 and schedule 3, which make the matter a little clearer. The Minister wants to put in place a scheme whereby the land owned by probation committees will be transferred to him. That is the scheme referred to in clause 19.
Schedule 3 deals with the way in which the scheme will operate, although it does not spell out what is being done. Taken in conjunction with what the Minister has told us about schedule 1, it makes it clear that we are talking simply of grabbing land held by the probation committees—a land grab by the Minister.
Some considerations need to be scrutinised. When the Minister refers to property held by a probation board, what does he mean by the word "held"? What legal interest does that encompass? In response to an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford, the Minister said that probation committees would be allowed to lease land but not to own it and that they would not be able to take out a long lease. What sort of lease will they be able to take out under the provisions? We need to know more about the meaning of the word "hold".
Will the Minister tell us how he expects probation committees to deal with their properties when they do not own them? If they do not own the property, will they have to go to the Home Secretary whenever they want to alter it? Will the committees be deterred from investing in their properties? Clearly, they will not want to invest in something that they do not own Will the Minister deal with that? What happens when the Home Secretary decides that he wants to act at variance with the probation board? Whose wishes take priority? Can the Home Secretary simply tell the board that the Government think that there is overcapacity, and that they want to sell the land or do what they like with it? What happens if the probation board takes a different view?
I was surprised to hear the Minister's justification on overcapacity; what he said did not relate to my experience or to that of the Hertfordshire probation service. Members of that service are crying out for additional places for young people in trouble. Sometimes, such young people have had to go into custody because there was not enough space for them in probation hostels. In Hertfordshire, there is tremendous pressure on places owing to the lack of land and property available to the probation service. The Minister tells us that there is overcapacity; that will come as a surprise to many people involved with the criminal justice system.
What if there is a difference between the probation board and the Secretary of State concerning the use of the board's land? Will the Secretary of State simply tell the board what to do? On what basis will the proposed transfer take place? Will there be compensation? Paragraph 3 of the schedule is relevant because it deals with the transfer of ownership that must occur if probation boards are not allowed to own land. What compensation will be paid under that provision?
Under paragraph 2(2) of the schedule, what would happen to a person who might have a legal interest in property or land that is currently owned by a probation committee? For example, what would happen to the legal rights of someone who benefited from an easement or a covenant on such land? Will their rights be transferred away along with the committee's ownership of
the land? We need to hear more about that matter from the Minister.
A host of issues lie behind this seemingly innocent, technical amendment. They arise from the Government's reluctance—even hostility—to the idea that probation committees should own their land. I suspect that, in future, probation boards will be put at a legal and commercial disadvantage by this measure; it will affect their operations. Far from the ownership of land causing a distraction, they will suffer from the distraction of not owning land—they will have to manage it and make various arrangements. They will experience a series of distractions because they do not own their land and thus cannot make decisions about their property. A further distraction could be provided by the intervention of the Secretary of State, who might decide to do something else with the land.
Given that the transfer will go ahead, will the Minister tell us how the matter will be dealt with in the Government accounts? Will it be counted as an asset to the Government—as a future windfall? Will it be classed as repayment of debt?
The provision gives rise to many important issues. The Minister will have to say far more; he cannot merely claim that ownership of land by probation committees is a distraction that prevents them from carrying out their functions and suggest, in addition, that there is overcapacity. He must spell out the answer to all the legal questions—as regards probation boards and other people who may have an interest.

6 pm

Mr. Forth: It is proposed to amend paragraph 13(1) of schedule 1, which states:
Subject to any directions given by the Secretary of State, a local board may do anything which appears to it to be necessary or expedient for the purpose of, or in connection with, the exercise of its functions.
That is a wide discretion.
In that context, we need to refer back to clause 1(2)(c), which lays a responsibility on the service and thus on local boards to provide—among other things—accommodation in approved premises. That is the link with property and gives us the clue as to why we have had to get involved in this matter—or indeed why the Government have had to become involved.
It is interesting that clause 3(2) states:
The Secretary of State may make any payment he considers appropriate towards expenditure incurred by any person for any of those purposes.
Further, clause 5(1) states:
It is a function of a local board … to make arrangements for ensuring that sufficient provision is made for the purposes mentioned in section 1 in respect of this area.
So there is a series of interlinking duties and powers, as one would expect in such measures, which sets the scene for the board to make proper provision for the discharge of its responsibilities.
During this brief debate, the Minister has made great play of the onus that he places on local boards to reduce reoffending. Presumably, he will also want to ensure that proper and adequate provision is made for the discharge of local boards' functions right across the policy spectrum. Presumably, anything that might inhibit that would be undesirable and counterproductive. That is the cause of much puzzlement among my hon. Friends and me.
Why has that arbitrary restriction been introduced? I can well understand my hon. Friends' mystification about the fact that the board will be encouraged to hold property, but will be prohibited from holding land. That arbitrary distinction is not only unnecessary, but as my hon. Friends have said, may eventually be counterproductive. Of course the obligation in clause 1(2)(c) to provide accommodation in approved premises suggests that—in layman's terms—property has to be acquired and made available.
I would add in parenthesis that I, too, speak as a non-lawyer. My hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) and I have the advantage of not being lawyers and, therefore, we can see things with greater clarity and in broader perspective. I suggest that a problem may well arise with freeholds and leaseholds if a distinction is made between property and buildings on one hand and land per se on the other. It strikes me, as a layman, that an unnecessary difficulty might be introduced if the board sought property without holding or owning the land.
That may or may not be a real distinction—perhaps the Minister will help us—but if I am correct, or even partially correct, such a distinction would introduce an unnecessary complication to the management function of the local boards. I am sure the Minister would be the first to claim or concede that the boards' principal responsibility is to those in their charge to reduce or eliminate reoffending.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: I am not a lawyer either. What will happen if the local people take out a leasehold and share it with other people, who persuade them that they should take out a flying freehold, so that, although they do not own the land, they start to own the freehold? Has my right hon. Friend considered that complication?

Mr. Forth: Not yet, but my hon. Friend tempts me greatly. He strengthens the point that that apparently and deceptively simple provision will cause several complications, and we have not yet dealt with the amendment.
The Lords amendment suggests that, although the boards may not hold land, they may manage it. That represents yet another complication that is not only unnecessary but positively undesirable. We are in danger of getting boards involved in a complex series of relationships involving property and the holding and management of land.
Why has that unnecessary entanglement been introduced? The Minister has done his best to try to explain why and to satisfy the House about it. He is renowned for his powers of persuasion but, try as he might, he failed to carry the House with him. He spent time on the issue and he brought all his expertise, experience and lawyer's gifts to bear. Still he failed to convince me, and probably my hon. Friends, that we should accept the distinction in paragraph 13(2) and 13(3) of schedule 1 and—what is even worse—the complication introduced by the Lords amendment. In that sense, we are no further forward. In fact, we are more worried than we were before that the local boards, with the great responsibilities that have been laid upon them by this Bill

and other legislation, will be deterred from fulfilling that responsibility if they are to adhere to the letter of the requirement.
That raises another serious matter. Will the local boards be required to adhere to the letter of the requirement? From what the Minister said, I got the sense that the requirement need not be implemented in too exact or punctilious a way. My hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) then discovered from the Minister that sleight of hand may be involved and that the Secretary of State could end up holding the land instead of the local board. That is a distinction without a difference.
We can start to play games about the notional ownership of the land and consider whether it should be held by the local board or the Secretary of State, but the point has been made that the board would be distracted from its duties if it had the difficulty of holding the land. The local board may have to manage the land, however. Holding the land is deemed to be too complicated or difficult, but managing it is deemed to be perfectly satisfactory. That is completely the wrong way round. I could have understood the provision if it had said that the board may hold the land but must not get involved in its management because that would distract it from its purpose. The Minister is trying to tell us that there is something inherently undesirable in a board's holding the land, but that it is perfectly acceptable for it to manage it.
The provision is all over the place; it is unsatisfactory; it is the wrong way round; it is upside down; and it is any other way that one can think of.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: It is inside out.

Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) said that he might have been minded to divide the House on the issue. We are now at the stage at which we shall have to think seriously about whether we are prepared to nod it through. It may be late in the Session, but it is not too late. There is still time for the Minister to give us a further explanation.

Mr. Clappison: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this is an important subject? The probation service owns land and property throughout the country that is used to accommodate young people who are in trouble. If that land is not available, those young people may have to be put into custody at even greater expense to the taxpayer or left out in the community where they may commit offences against members of the public.

Mr. Forth: Regrettably, that is entirely possible. I do not want my hon. Friend to misunderstand me. I am not implying that this is a minor matter—quite the opposite. The fact that it is before the House at this stage is a matter for regret rather than rejoicing. It is the type of issue to which we should give full consideration and, so far, we have managed to do that.
The challenge to the Minister is serious. If he is not able to do better than he has heretofore, in his opening remarks and interventions, we may be forced to express our dissatisfaction with the provision by seeking to establish the view of the House in a Division. We have done our best to ask the proper questions. We shall now assess the Minister's reply.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: The debate has taken an interesting turn or two. It has gone through a few S-bends


and meandered so much that, to some extent, debate on a straightforward and narrowly drafted clause has expanded into a great discussion on who owns what and how it is managed.
Call me a lawyer, but I have to say that the situation is clear. The board's principal responsibility is to prevent and tackle reoffending. We want it to spend its time doing that instead of dealing with the problem and responsibility of owning land. The Bill clearly shows that it can own and manage property, the broad definition of which includes everything from a paperclip to a computer, and which could include land. The Bill excludes ownership of land as such. We accept that the board will need to manage property, which may include the office from which it runs its service.

Mr. Clappison: rose—

Mr. O'Brien: I shall take one intervention, but this has been a long debate and I want to make substantial progress.

Mr. Clappison: I hope that the Minister will answer the questions that have been put to him. Can he set the scene for that by telling us what the word "hold" means? What will the probation board be allowed to hold?

Mr. O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman is well aware that "hold" is a term of art that is used in property legislation. It goes back to the Law of Property Act 1925 which refers to the way in which land is held and transferred. If the hon. Gentleman wants a dissertation on the meaning of "hold", he can look at the various legal textbooks; I do not propose to give a lecture on it now. All we are talking about in this context is the ownership of land. We are saying that a board will be able to hold and manage property, which may include paperclips and computers, but not to own long leases or the freehold of property. That is the principle behind what we are doing. We want the board to concentrate on the job in hand, so as to ensure that it deals with issues of reoffending.
The Opposition have always supported the proposition that the board should be able to manage land. They tabled an amendment to that effect in another place. The hon. Member for Hertsmere said that our proposal is a land grab by Ministers. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should have made such a silly point. He well knows that the land is owned by the taxpayer and that its benefits will accrue to the taxpayer—if, indeed, there are any.
The hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Bums) said that the value of land often increases, as do the benefits to the owner. I have two comments to make on that. First, although 1 accept that land usually increases in value, it does not always; indeed, the hon. Gentleman will remember when it decreased under the Conservative Government. Secondly, local authorities all too often held on to land in the hope that it might either be of use or be something that they could sell at a greater profit in some years' time. There should be proper business management of such matters. Decisions made locally will not properly consider the overall interests of the taxpayer. The money to run the probation service—locally or nationally—comes from the taxpayer. It is right that the capital or assets that belong to the service should be well managed to bring the taxpayer value for money. That is what the proposal is all about and what we want to achieve.
On the transfer of land, and in response to the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), most of the land owned by the probation service will revert to the Crown estate—in effect, to the Home Secretary—so it will be controlled and managed nationally. If the land is owned in some way by the local authority—or jointly owned, since there may be all sorts of different relationships and legal obligations that have developed over the years—the individual characteristics under which local arrangements have been arrived at will have to be examined nationally, and perhaps some land will have to go to a county council. However, normally, because 100 per cent. of probation service capital costs have historically taken a national route, whereas 20 per cent. of the service's revenue costs have come from local government, the capital will revert. There may be particular local circumstances, which will have to be considered case by case. I hope that that deals with the hon. Gentleman's point.
6.15 pm
The hon. Member for West Chelmsford asked whether there were provisions for compensation. The answer is yes, there may be local circumstances—perhaps with a county council or otherwise—as a result of which it is decided that the council owns a proportion of the property, and some compensation will have to be paid. I understand that that is set out in schedule 3. Compensation would be paid where—I think that this is the phrase used—it is just to do so.
The issue of drafting legislation has floated around during the debate—and here I enter a defence of parliamentary draftsmen, who are experts at what they do. It takes about five years to qualify as a parliamentary draftsman. The job is difficult and there is all too often a tendency to be overly critical of them. Ministers are responsible for what we put before the House, and we do our best to ensure that we accept that, but, on this occasion, criticism seems to have been aimed in the direction of the parliamentary draftsmen. Many of them have been working in that office for decades. They have highly skilled and technical legal abilities. There are always good reasons for their drafting—at least they certainly believe so. To some extent, it is a pity that they do not have a right of reply to Members of Parliament and perhaps, on occasion, to Ministers.
I shall now deal with another couple of points that were raised. The first is how and when the property will vest nationally to the Crown estate. It will vest on what is called vesting day, following an order under clause 19. The probation service will then become part of the Crown estate and, in effect, all properties will be owned by the Home Office—although probation boards will continue to have an ability to influence local operation and so will describe the requirements for offices and other facilities. The boards will continue to have direct responsibility for management of the property in the area, and will retain responsibility for determining their property needs.
The hon. Member for Hertsmere indicated that there was a shortage of probation hostels. As a Minister in the previous Government, he should assume his share of responsibility for that. As I understand it, overcapacity in the probation service relates primarily to office space and other land. As I have already said, where we are reducing 20 locally based services to eight, there will be some


savings to the taxpayer. It is right that those savings revert to the taxpayer and are spent on public services, especially those that reduce reoffending.
The basis of the amendment is to ensure that boards direct their attention to the people's priority of reducing reoffending. That is why it is before the House and that is why I commend it to the House.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: The House will agree with the Minister's final words. We all want to reduce reoffending—and, for that matter, reduce offending in the first place—but the details of the debate are not about that. If the Minister discovers that anything that he has said could be better put, I hope that he will take the opportunity afforded by written answers in the new Session. Perhaps some of the details could be improved. The question of the long leasehold is still unclear to most people who have been following the debate. The Minister said that a short leasehold is all right. However, what happens when a local board asks whether a five-year lease is a short or long leasehold? Is a long lease 15 or 25 years? Some issues may not be clear to local boards.
When invited to do so, the Minister conceded that he is nationalising a lot of property and taking it into central control. That has been noted, but if the Minister is not proposing to table a manuscript amendment to tidy up the details, the House may have to return to the matter in future. The hon. Gentleman has left the situation unclear, with the exception of the central point that, under Labour, land is nationalised. The Conservatives would leave more freedom for local people.

Mr. O'Brien: I shall reply to what some may regard as an uncharacteristically trite point from the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley). Land that is reverting to the taxpayers' Government was provided by taxpayers.

Mrs. Angela Browning: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Should the Minister not have required leave of the House to return to the Dispatch Box?

Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal): The Minister accepted an intervention. Would he like to continue?

Mr. O'Brien: I am grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have made my point and we can move on.

Question put, That this House agrees with the Lords in their amendment in lieu of Lords amendment No. 135:—

The House divided: Ayes 275, Noes 116.

Division No. 367]
[6.21 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Austin, John


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Bailey, Adrian


Ainger, Nick
Banks, Tony


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov"try NE)
Barnes, Harry


Allen, Graham
Barron, Kevin


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Battle, John


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Bayley, Hugh


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Beard, Nigel


Atkins, Charlotte
Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret





Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Galloway, George


Bennett, Andrew F
George, Bruce (Walsall S)


Benton, Joe 
Gerrard, Neil


Berry, Roger
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Best, Harold 
Godman, Dr Norman A


Betts, Clive
Godsiff, Roger


Blackman, Liz
Goggins, paul


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Bradshaw, Ben 
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Grogan, John


Browne, Desmond
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Buck, Ms Karen
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Butler, Mrs Christine
Hanson, David


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Healey, John


Caborn, Rt Hon Richard
Hepburn, Stephen


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Hill, Keith


Cann, Jamie
Hinchliffe David


Caplin, Ivor
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Casale, Roger
Hoey, Kate


Caton, Martin
Hood, Jimmy


Cawsey, Ian
Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Hope, Phil


Chaytor, David
Hopkins, Kelvin


Clapham, Michael
Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Clark, Dr Lynda
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


(Edinburgh Pentlands)
Hurst, Alan


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Hutton, John


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Iddon, Dr Brian


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Illsley, Eric


Clelland, David
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Clwyd, Ann
Jackson, Helen Hillsborough


Coffey,Ms Ann
Jamieson, David


Coleman, Iain
Jenkins, Brian


Colman, Tony
Johnson,Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Connarty, Michael
Johnson, Miss Melanie


Cook,Frank (Stockton N)
(Welwyn Hatfield)


Cooper, Yvette
Johnson, Mrs Fiona (Newark)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Corston, Jean
Jones, Ms Jenny


Cousins, Jim
(Wolverh'ton SW)


Cox, Tom
Jones,Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Cranston, Ross
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Crausby, David
Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Kaufman,Rt Hon Gerald


Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire
Keeble,Ms Sally


Dalyell, Tam
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Darvill, Keith
Kemp, Fraser


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Khabra, Piara S


Davidson, Ian
Kilfoyle,Peter


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
King,Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


Dean, Mrs Janet
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Denham, John
Lammy, David


Dismore, Andrew
Laxton, Bob


Dobbin, Jim
Lepper, David


Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
Levitt, Tom


Donohoe, Brian H
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Dowd, Jim
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


Drown, Ms Julia
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Lock, David


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Love, Andrew


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
McAvoy, Thomas


Edwards, Huw
McCabe, Steve


Efford, Clive
McCafferty, Ms Chris



Ennis, Jeff
McDonagh, Siobhain


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Macdonald, Calum


Fitzpatrick, Jim
McDonnell, John


Flint, Caroline
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
McIsaac, Shona


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Mckenna, Mrs Rosemary


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
McNamara, Kevin






Mactaggart, Fiona
Shaw, Jonathan


McWalter, Tony
Sheerman, Barry


McWilliam, John
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Mallaber, Judy
Shipley, Ms Debra


Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter
Short, Rt Hon Clare


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Singh, Marsha


Martlew, Eric
Skinner, Dennis


Meale, Alan 
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Merron, Gillian
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Michael, Rt Hon Alun
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Smith, Miss Geraldine


Miller, Andrew
(Morecambe & Lunesdale


Moffatt, Laura
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Moran, Ms Margaret
Snape, Peter


Morley, Elliot
Soley, Clive


Mountford, Kali
Spellar, John


Mullin, Chris
Squire, Ms Rachel


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Steinberg, Gerry


Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)
Stevenson, George


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Stoate, Dr Howard


O'Hara, Eddie
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Olner, Bill
Stringer, Graham


O'Neill, Marlin
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Osborne, Ms Sandra
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann


Palmer, Dr Nick
(Dewsbury)


Pearson, Ian
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Perham, Ms Linda
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Pickthall, Colin
Temple-Morris, Peter


Pike, Peter L
Timms, Stephen


Plaskitt, James
Tipping, Paddy


Pollard, Kerry
Todd, Mark


Pope, Greg
Touhig, Don


Pound, Stephen
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Prosser, Gwyn
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Purchase, Ken
Tynan, Bill


Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce
Vis, Dr Rudi


Quinn, Lawrie
Wareing, Robert N


Rapson, Syd
White, Brian


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Robertson, John
Wicks, Malcolm


(Glasgow Anniesland)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Roche, Mrs Barbara
(Swansea W)


Rogers, Allan
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen


Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Rooney, Terry
Winnick, David


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Woolas, Phil


Roy, Frank
Worthington, Tony


Ruddock, Joan
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Ryan, Ms Joan
Wyatt, Derek


Salter, Martin



Sarwar, Mohammad
Tellers for the Ayes:


Sawford, Phil
Mr. Tony McNulty and


Sedgemore, Brian
Mr. Mike Hall.




NOES


Allan, Richard
Butterfill, John


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Cash, William


Akinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Chapman, Sir Sydney


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
(Chipping Barnet)


Baldry, Tony
Chidgey, David


Beggs, Roy
Chope, Christopher


Beresford, Sir Paul
Clappison, James


Body, Sir Richard
Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)


Boswell, Tim
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
(Rushcliffe)


Brady, Graham
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Brazier, Julian
Collins, Tim


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Cran, James


Browning, Mrs Angela
Curry, Rt Hon David


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Davies, Quentin (Grantham)


Burns, Simon
Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)





Day, Stephen
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
McLoughlin, Patrick


Evans, Nigel
Maples, John


Faber, David
Moss, Malcolm


Fabricant, Michael
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)


Fallon, Michael
Öpik, Lembit


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Ottaway, Richard


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Page, Richard


Fraser, Christopher
Pickles, Eric


Gale, Roger
Rendel, David


Garnier, Edward
Robathan, Andrew


Gibb, Nick
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Gill, Christopher
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Ross, William (E Lond'y)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Ruffley, David


Green, Damian
St Aubyn, Nick


Grieve, Dominic
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Soames, Nicholas


Hammond, Philip
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Hawkins, Nick
Spicer, Sir Michael


Heald, Oliver
Spring, Richard


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Stanley, Rt hon Sir John


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Steen, Anthony


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Streeter, Gary


Horam, John
Swayne, Desmond


Howarth, Gerald,(Aldershort)
Syms, Robert


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey 
Taylor, Sir Teddy



Townen, John


Key, Robert
Trend, Michael


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Tyrie, Andrew


Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Waterson, Nigel


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Wells, Bowen


Leigh, Edward
Whittingdale, John


Letwin, Oliver
Wilkinson, John


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Willetts, David


Lidington, David
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Livsey, Richard
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Loughton, Tim



Luff, Peter
Tellers for the Noes:


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Mr. John Randall and


McIntosh, Miss Anne
Mr. James Gray.

Question accordingly agreed to.

LOCAL BOARDS

Lords amendment: No. 122, in page 46, line 15, at end insert—

("() Regulations made by virtue of sub-paragraph (4) and coming into force on or after the coming into force of section 4 must make provision—

(a) for the selection procedure for the chairman, the chief officer and the other members of the board who are to be appointed by the Secretary of State to include selection panels,
(b) in the case of the chief officer, for the board to be represented on any selection panel making a final recommendation to the Secretary of State.")

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, Pursuant to Standing Ordr No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

That the draft Producer Responsibility Obligation (Packaging Waste) (Amendment) (England and Wales) Regulation 2000, Which were laid before this House on 20th November, be approved.— [Mr. Jamieson.]

Question agreed to.

HUMAN RIGHTS (JOINT COMMITTEE)

Motion made,

That the Lords Message [12th July] communicating a Resolution, That it is expedient that a Joint Committee of both House be appointed—
to consider and report on:

(a) matters relating to human rights in the United Kingdom (but excluding consideration of individual cases);


(b) proposals for remedial orders, draft remedial orders and remedial orders made under section 10 of and laid under Schedule 2 to the Human Rights Act 1998; and
(c) in respect of draft remedial orders and remedial orders, whether the special attention of the House should be drawn to them on any of the grounds specified in House of Lords Standing Order 73 (Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments);

to report to the House:

(a) in relation to any document containing proposals laid before the House under paragraph 3 of the said Schedule 2, its recommendation whether a draft order in the same terms as the proposals should be laid before the House;
(b) in relation to any draft order laid under paragraph 2 of the said Schedule 2,

its recommendation whether the draft order should be approved;
and to have power to report to the House on any matter arising from its consideration of the said proposals or draft orders; and
to report to the House in respect of any original order laid under paragraph 4 of the said Schedule 2, its recommendation whether:

(a) the order should be approved in the form in which it was originally laid before Parliament; or
(b) that the order should be replaced by a new order modifying the provisions of the original order; or
(c) that the order should not be approved,

and to have power to report to the House on any matter arising from its consideration of the said order or any replacement order,
be now considered.

Hon. Members: No!

Mr. Nick Hawkins: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. My understanding is that the Lords Message is debatable, and we on these Benches want to debate it.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal): I advise the hon. Gentleman that there is a further motion to be dealt with, and it might be more appropriate if he made his objections known then.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Some of us believe in debate and in holding this arrogant Government to account. It is clearly stated on the Order Paper that motion 5, which stands in the name of the Leader of the House and is entitled Human Rights (Joint Committee), is not debatable after 7 pm. I am capable of reading the clock and seeing that it is 6.39 pm, so presumably we have the opportunity to consider the important proposal that there should be a Joint Committee to discuss that matter. May we now discuss it?

Madam Deputy Speaker: In no way was it my wish to curtail debate on a debatable motion. I merely suggested that it might be more appropriate to launch a debate when we reach motion 6. However, if the hon. Gentleman wants to debate motion 5, clearly he is entitled to do so.

Question proposed.

The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): I agree with those voices in the House that say it is important to debate this motion.

During the passage of the Human Rights Act 1998, the Government committed themselves to the establishment of a Joint Committee on Human Rights. That Committee was widely welcomed across political parties, although it may have caused controversy in some of the parties and in both Houses. The Lords have agreed to a remit for that Joint Committee, and the motion invites the Commons to agree that remit.
The Committee's terms of reference give it a wide power to consider matters relating to human rights in the United Kingdom. In that role, it will choose subjects and hold inquiries in the normal way. It will also have a specific duty to consider and report on remedial orders made under the Human Rights Act.
The Human Rights Act preserves parliamentary sovereignty. The courts will have no power to strike down primary legislation on the ground that it is incompatible with convention rights, but they will be able to declare that legislation is incompatible with those rights. It will be up to Parliament to decide what action, if any, should be taken following a declaration of incompatibility. Changes to the incompatible legislation could be made through fresh primary legislation or through remedial orders.
Remedial orders will follow roughly the same pattern as deregulation orders. A proposal will be laid and consulted on, during which time the Committee can report, and then a draft order will be laid, which may or may not incorporate any amendments suggested by the Committee. The Committee will report on the draft order. There is also provision, in cases of urgency, for orders having the effect of law immediately to be laid before Parliament for approval and for amendments be made to them, if necessary taking account of any report from the Committee.
The Human Rights Committee is expected to play a role in examining remedial orders analogous to that played by the Select Committee on Deregulation regarding deregulation orders. It is not known how frequently such remedial orders will be laid, but it is hoped that they will be rare. However, whether they are rare or not, the Joint Committee on Human Rights will be able to provide Parliament with an expert opinion on them.
The Committee will be able to scrutinise legislation before Parliament to decide whether it is compatible with the European convention on human rights—especially draft legislation or that subject to a statement made under section 19(1)(b) of the Human Rights Act. However, nothing in its terms of reference compels it to do so.
The task of scrutinising statutory instruments for technical faults will remain with the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. The grounds for objection to an instrument's vires have been widened by the Human Rights Act to include incompatibility with the ECHR. The Government firmly believe that human rights should be central to our considerations—I think that the current and cult word is "mainstreaming". Giving scrutiny of the human rights aspects of delegated legislation to the JCHR would run counter to that view, would swamp the Committee by requiring it to examine the 1,500 or so instruments laid in a typical Session, and would lead to duplication of effort.
When the two Houses have reached agreement on the principle that there should be a Committee and have agreed a common remit, we will bring forward detailed Standing


Orders covering its powers. It may assist the House if I explain those powers. The Committee is expected to have six Members from each House, on the model of the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege. It will have the powers commonly given to Select Committees, plus a power to exchange papers with other Committees. Discussions are currently taking place about membership of the Committee. Following those discussions, the House of Commons will be asked to approve the membership.

Mr. Eric Forth: Can the Minister tell us how the Chairman of the Committee will be elected, or appointed?. It would be helpful for us to know whether the Minister envisages any ground rules, or whether the matter will be entirely for the discretion of Committee members.

Mr. Tipping: It will be a matter for the House. Members will have an opportunity to vote.
I hope that, following my assurances, the House will approve the resolution.

Mr. Nick Hawkins: We are delighted to have an opportunity to scrutinise the proposal. I note from columns 233 and 234 of the Official Report on 12 July that all that happened in another place was that the Attorney-General read out the proposal on behalf of his noble Friend Lady Jay. There was no debate, so it is particularly important for the democratically elected Chamber to scrutinise what is being suggested.

Mr. Forth: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Hawkins: I certainly will, on this occasion.

Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I hope he is not suggesting that 14 minutes constitutes adequate time for the House to scrutinise something as important as this.

Mr. Hawkins: I am sorry if I have not already made that clear. I certainly agree with my right hon. Friend that the time allowed is inadequate. Nevertheless, we think it important to debate the motion. I was delighted to hear the Minister agree, when we raised our points of order with you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that it was debatable and should be debated.
As I have said, I agree with my right hon. Friend that the time remaining is inadequate. For that reason, the House may decide that further debates are needed in a later Session.

Mr. John Gummer: Surely the reason that we have any time at all is, in a sense, an accident. It is difficult for the Minister to suggest the existence of any credibility for the debate when the remaining minutes are not only few but accidental. It does not look as if the Government were over the moon about their attempt to give the House an opportunity for debate.

Mr. Hawkins: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. This may be another example of a happy coincidence calling the Government to account, and my right hon.

Friend was justified in suggesting as much. However, Conservative Members are determined to use what time is left to seek to hold the Government to account.
Ever since the Government incorporated the European convention on human rights into our legislation, Conservative Members have repeatedly questioned them about the cost of implementation to the taxpayer. Throughout the process, the Government have said that the cost will be negligible. In questions to both the Home Secretary and the Lord Chancellor's Department, I have repeatedly suggested that the Government woefully underestimated that cost. Because of our feeling that the Government horrendously underestimated it, we are especially delighted to have the opportunity to examine the further piece of parliamentary bureaucracy that the Government propose in the establishment of the Joint Committee.

Jean Corston: Is it not extraordinary that Conservative Members should complain that there was a short debate this evening? In 1995, a Conservative Government—incidentally, the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) was a Minister then—

Mr. Forth: A distinguished Minister.

Jean Corston: So the right hon. Gentleman says; others may have a different view. Anyway, that Government incorporated article 2 of the convention without any parliamentary scrutiny or debate.

Mr. Hawkins: The hon. Lady is seeking to go back five years into history. I hope she will correct her unwillingness to describe my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) as a distinguished Minister, which indeed he was. When I was a new Back Bencher, I had the great privilege of supporting him in much of the valuable work that he was doing, particularly when he was a Minister of State at the Department for Education. He was one of the best and most diligent Schools Ministers that the House has ever had the pleasure of working with.
Government Back Benchers' churlishness in failing to recognise the work done by distinguished Ministers such as my right hon. Friend is an absolute disgrace. It is absolutely typical of them to say that they believe in human rights while being unwilling to pay tribute to the work done by my right. hon. Friends in the previous Government.
I should like to examine the terms of the undoubtedly bureaucratic innovation that the Government are suggesting in the resolution. I am one of a relatively small number of hon. Members who have sat—in the previous Parliament—on a Joint Committee. There are not many such Committees. However, the one on which I sat—which had many distinguished Members of this place and of another place—undoubtedly used to get tied up in bureaucracy.
One of the concerns that I know is shared by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst—which they may be able to outline in a moment if they are able to catch your eye, Madam Deputy


Speaker—is that the Government are seeking in the resolution to impose an additional cost and bureaucratic burden arising from the Human Rights Act 1998.

Mr. Andrew Miller: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his courtesy in giving way. However, I am also slightly confused. The resolution begins by mentioning the "Lords Message [12 July]". I presume that that means that the message has been in the hon. Gentleman's hands, or at least in the public domain, since 12 July. What representations have Conservative Members made, through the usual channels, to have a longer debate on the subject?

Mr. Hawkins: I have not personally been involved at any stage in my parliamentary career in what are usually referred to as the usual channels. I do not think the hon. Gentleman has ever been involved on behalf of his party in what are usually referred to as the usual channels. I therefore do not think that he can ask such a question, and I am certainly not able to answer it.

Mr. Gummer: Does my hon. Friend agree that a matter of this importance does not require requests for debate from the Opposition? Since when has debate in this House been something that the Opposition should request? When the previous Government were in office, we constantly had debates because we thought that subjects were sufficiently important to debate. The trouble with this Government is that they do not want debate on anything at all.

Mr. Hawkins: Of course my right hon. Friend, who has vastly more experience of how the usual channels operate than the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) or me, is absolutely right. The Government constantly attempt to bypass Parliament and to curtail debate or abolish it entirely. When we are considering the human rights issue, perhaps we should also be considering the human rights of parliamentarians.

Mr. Forth: Does my hon. Friend not think it odd—sinister, in fact—that something that arose on 12 July is being brought to the House by the Government only in the very last minutes of this Session? What does he think has been happening to the resolution in the intervening several months? Are the Government ashamed of it, or do they want to avoid debate? Why has it taken so long for the Government to bring it to the House?

Mr. Hawkins: That is an appropriate question. The Government chose to have one of the longest summer recesses in living memory. This proposal was put before another place before the recess, and we could have had plenty of time to deal with it. Why should this appear today? Why have the Government been so secretive? My right hon. and hon. Friends will be pressing the Minister to respond if we have a further debate. If there is not time for debate, the Government could withdraw the motion and bring it back in a new Session—

Mr. Forth: Tomorrow.

Mr. Hawkins: Or tomorrow, as my right hon. Friend says, when there could be scope for a more thorough debate.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: I am grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office for his unfailing courtesy in dealing with the House, even if he is the messenger of some ghastly messages.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for at least telling the House what the proposal is all about. It is right that a matter of topical interest to the public—human rights—should be brought before us at the 59th minute of the 11th hour. That suggests that the Government wanted to smuggle this through at the last minute.

Mr. Tipping: I said straightforwardly that we wished to debate that matter. The debate may not be completed today; it may be necessary to have a further debate at another date.

Mr. Howarth: The House will be grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for that, as there would be a wish on our part to debate the issues. Human rights and the way in which the law is developing in that area are causing great concern.
I wish to refer to the impact of the European convention on human rights on this House. I have said many times that it is deeply offensive to our democratic and constitutional principles in this country for the composition of Her Majesty's armed forces to be determined not by this House but by European Court of Human Rights judges who are not nationals of this country, let alone Members of this House.

Mr. David Taylor: Can the hon. Gentleman not say that they are foreigners?

Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman anticipates me. They are, indeed, foreigners, or aliens. They are manifestly not Members of this House. The Government are perfectly entitled to bring the proposal to the House for debate and a vote, but that was not the practice. The Government said that they had been handed down a decision by the European Court and they simply had to comply with it, as they have done without a vote in this House or in another place.

Mr. Christopher Chope: Does my hon. Friend share my concern that the Joint Committee will not be able to look at individual cases? Is that not a major failing?

Mr. Howarth: I am not in favour of these matters being addressed by the Joint Committee. My immediate reaction is that this will be a hellish bureaucratic procedure. For example, the order states that the Joint Committee will be appointed
to consider and report on:
(a) matters relating to human rights in the United Kingdom.
That is a complete open sesame. What are we letting ourselves in for? Will we have to sit in permanent session, considering whether it is the human right of girls in school to wear trousers if they so wish, rather than the designated uniform of that school? Are we to—

7 pm

Sitting suspended.

On resuming—

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners:

The House went; and, having returned:

ROYAL ASSENT

8 pm

Mr. Speaker: I have to acquaint the House that the House has been to the House of Peers, where a Commission under the Great Seal was read, authorising the Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000
Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000
Freedom of Information Act 2000
Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000
Transport Act 2000
Insolvency Act 2000
Protection of Animals (Amendment) Act 2000
Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000
Disqualifications Act 2000
Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000
Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 2000

PROROGATION

Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech

Mr. Speaker: I have further to acquaint the House that the Lord High Chancellor, one of the Lord Commissioners, delivered Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech to both Houses of Parliament, in pursuance of Her Majesty's Command. For greater accuracy, I have obtained a copy and also directed that the terms of the speech be printed in the Journal of the House. Copies are being made available in the Vote Office.
The Gracious Speech was as follows:

My Lords and Members of the House of Commons

My Government has taken action to secure economic stability and steady growth, based on its long-term objectives for monetary and fiscal policy. The goal is high and stable levels of growth and employment. My Government has sought to secure the conditions which enable it to increase investment in public services.

Improving education continues to be my Government's highest priority. An Act has been passed to establish a new Learning and Skills Council to secure high standards for post-16 education and training and a new emphasis on securing skills needed in the economy

Legislation has been passed to improve health and social care, reforming the system for protection of vulnerable people.

My Government has published an NHS Plan, setting out a programme of investment and reform for the health service. The Plan will redesign NHS services to focus on the needs of patients, and will be supported by a sustained increase in NHS funding.

To ensure high levels of employment, my Government is continuing the New Deal to help more young people and the long-term unemployed, and announced the creation of a new Working Age agency to continue the progress made on developing Welfare to Work policies.

My Government is continually looking for ways to improve productivity, including in the public sector. The spending plans announced in July were accompanied by Public Service Agreements setting out targets for service improvement. An Act has-been passed to introduce the latest accounting methods in Whitehall.

My Government is committed to delivering a competitive and well-regulated economy. An Act has been passed which reforms the regulatory framework for the gas and electricity sectors in England and Wales. Legislation has been enacted to transform the Post Office into a plc owned by the Government. Legislation has also been passed to improve the regulation of financial services and markets, establishing the Financial Services Authority as the single statutory regulator. An Act has been passed to remove legal barriers and create a framework of trust to make it easier for commercial transactions and Government services to take place electronically.

An Act has been passed to reform the child support system. It also reforms the State Earnings Related Pension Scheme through the introduction of a State Second Pension and provides for the withdrawal of benefits from offenders who fail to complete community sentences.

Measures have been put forward to reduce crime. An Act has been passed to improve the protection of children from violent and sex offenders and to strengthen community sentences. Legislation has been enacted to provide new powers for the police and courts to tackle disorder connected with football matches.

An Act has been passed to put in place permanent UK-wide legislation against terrorism. Legislation has also been passed to update and regulate law enforcement capabilities to address changes in technology and the introduction of the Human Rights Act.

An Act has been passed which fulfils my Government's promise to legislate on a range of transport issues. This reforms air traffic control, railways and local transport services. My Government has published a ten-year plan for the modernisation of the country's transport system.

My Government has continued its plans for the reform of local government. An Act has been passed to improve its accountability and innovation. An Act has been passed to give the public a new right of access to open countryside. It also improves the law on rights of way and the management of Sites of Special Scientific Interest and Areas of Outstanding National Beauty and strengthens the enforcement of wildlife law.

My Government has continued its programme of constitutional reform. Legislation has been enacted which will give the public a statutory right of access to information held by public authorities.

An Act has been passed to regulate the funding of political parties and campaign expenditure and to ensure the fair conduct of referendums. My Government is determined to improve equality of opportunity. An Act has been passed outlawing race discrimination in certain public functions and placing a duty on specified public authorities to promote race equality.

My Government has continued to co-operate with the devolved administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in the interests of all of the people in the United Kingdom. In Northern Ireland my Government has worked closely with the Irish Government to secure full implementation of the Good Friday Agreement. It has fulfilled its commitment to transfer powers to the Northern Ireland Assembly in accordance with the wishes of the people as expressed in a referendum.

An Act has been passed to implement recommendations of the Report of the Independent Commission on policing in Northern Ireland. My Government will continue to implement other parts of the Good Friday agreement within its responsibility.

Members of the House of Commons

I thank you for the provision you have made for the work and dignity of the Crown and for the public service.

My Lords and Members of the House of Commons

The Duke of Edinburgh and I were pleased to receive the State Visit of Her Majesty Queen Margrethe of Denmark and Prince Henrik in February.

We recall with pleasure our visit to Australia in March. Similarly we were delighted to pay a State Visit to Italy and a Visit to the Holy See in October.

My Government has continued to take a leading role in the European Union. The Special European Council in Lisbon signalled new developments in Europe' s approach to economic and social reform.

Preparing for enlargement is a challenge for the European Union, and my Government is playing a key role. My Government has worked for practical measures to strengthen the European Union's foreign and security policy and continues to work with our allies to strengthen and modernise NATO.

My Government has made a large political, military and financial commitment to build peace and stability in the Balkans. It has played a leading role in helping to rebuild Kosovo.

My Government has taken decisive action in support of the UN operation in Sierra Leone, and continued to support the UN in bringing self-determination to the people of East Timor. In the G8 and other forums my Government has taken a leading role in tackling issues of poverty eradication, debt relief and the causes of conflict.

My Lords and Members of the House of Commons

I pray that the blessing of Almighty God may attend you.

A Commission was also read for proroguing this present Parliament, and the Lord Chancellor said:
My Lords and Members of the House of Commons: by virtue of Her Majesty's Commission which has now been read, we do, in Her Majesty's name, and in obedience to Her Majesty's Commands, prorogue this Parliament to Wednesday the sixth day of December, to be then here holden, and this Parliament is accordingly prorogued to Wednesday the sixth day of December next.

End of the Third Session (opened on 17 November 1999) of the Fifty-Second Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in the Forty-Ninth Year of the Reign of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second.